User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2010 November

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 39

Template: Trial complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 02:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject U.S. Roads

Template_talk:U.S._Roads_WikiProject#Renaming_to_WikiProject_U.S._Roads. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at the appropriate venue. Rich Farmbrough, 21:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Religious

Smackbot made weird edit to Chelsea Dagger claiming it was a religous text. -- Horkana (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank, onto it, error in build 560. Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot's creation of monthly cleanup categories

Hi!

I've just spotted that Femto Bot has created 52 monthly cleanup categories for December 2010, and they're filling up CAT:CSD cos they're empty (and should be for a month) - is this intentional, or a bug?

Thanks

[stwalkerster|talk] 02:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a bug, I was aware of. They shouldn't get into CSD, that's a bug was unaware of. Rich Farmbrough, 02:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Taken care of. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot

The bot is adding "place of death" and "place of birth" parameters to Persondata when "PLACE OF DEATH" and "PLACE OF BIRTH" are already given, resulting in unnecessary duplication.[1][2] DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, known bug see previous section. Rich Farmbrough, 08:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Why don't use standard AWB function? You can isolate it by using custom modules. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebius (Bruno) of Angers listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eusebius (Bruno) of Angers. Since you had some involvement with the Eusebius (Bruno) of Angers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at the appropriate venue. Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Unnecessary change to Persondata

Please see this edit. __meco (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, known bug (build 560/X1), since fixed (Build 561/X2). Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

AWB & templates starting with acronyms in upper case

As an editor involved in prior discussions over AWB, templates and first letter casing please consider commenting on this discussion thread. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at the appropriate venue. Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

DEFAULTSORT

This sort of Smackbot edit adding a DEFAULTSORT with the page's exact title isn't even cosmetic: it seems entirely redundant. In any case, I don't think it should be happening (if there's a demonstrated consensus for it, please point me to it). Rd232 ^talk 09:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We sort case-insensitive, therefore any article with words commencing with lower-case, with diacritics, with capitalised diacritics is a candidate for DEFAULTSORT. Rich Farmbrough, 09:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Because obviously there are so many other pages starting with "Michael Schimmel Center" which would be incorrectly sorted without this defaultsort. Thanks, this is a prime example of a useless edit that follows the letter of a (also useless) rule, but does absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 09:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Alright, then tell us please how this edit did improve Wikipedia? Which has the greater chance of happening, another article that starts with "Michael Schimmel Center" in a shared category with this one, which would then result in perhaps a slightly incorrect sorting (in some cases, not always), or a move of the Michael Schimmel Center to a new name which would then result in a completely incorrect sorting? Fram (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion made somewhere that it would be really useful to have a bot which would look at pages which were moved, and check whether the sort key still looks right and flag up for consideration those which looked problematic. I must say I don't think I've thought of checking for default sort when moving an article, and will do so in future... though most of the pages I move are stubs to which I often add a sort key if necessary (personal names, "The", or diacriticals in particular). In most cases, default sort keys are a help to the encyclopedia and allow articles to sort in the place the average reader would look within a category. PamD (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with defaultsorts used on pages where they are useful. Western-style named biographies should e.g. all have one, and for many lists and so on one may be useful as well. This is about pages that are not really sorted differently, the capitalisation of the second, third, fourth word is changed, which will often not sort it differently at all (e.g. the above example), or in the best case just move it up a few places in one of the categories of the article. Anyway, I have just started an RfC about this at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC on Sortkey issue. Fram (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you tell me. I would answer that question, but I could spend a lot of time on it and the answer would likely be ignored. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If you are not willing to even try to explain the usefulness of your edits, then please don't make them. Fram (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether's its useless is a matter of judgement. The issue is whether applying DEFAULTSORT in such cases automatically has consensus. Unless such consensus exists, it should cease. You're under edit restrictions requiring you not to make merely cosmetic changes (changes which have no effect on the rendered page) unless the changes have demonstrable consensus. DEFAULTSORT changes of any sort breach this restriction (unless they have demonstrable consensus). Where DEFAULTSORT leads to the article being sorted in categories under a different (better) letter heading, that consensus clearly exists from longstanding practice; by the time you get to the second and third word of a title, the sorting effects are comparatively trivial, and I'm not convinced there is a consensus for them. Maybe there is, but this is exactly the sort of thing you should be able to point somewhere and say "it's supported by this", or else stop and ask somewhere appropriate to confirm support. So please stop Smackbot making such DEFAULTSORT edits, unless or until you can show consensus for them. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard AWB practice, and of course the question of whether to stop after word 2 or word 3 or word 4 will have occurred to many. It's not however a simple decision because of the nature of collocations. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for bringing this edit to my attention, I have corrected the broken template which caused it. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:In Spanish

Template:In Spanish has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

I'm letting you know because you recently moved the template. Auntof6 (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to May 1968

Hi - your work de-linking date fragments is generally much needed. Just thought I'd draw your attention to the May 1968 in France article to which May 1968 redirects - some of these links may need disambiguation rather than removal. Warofdreams talk 04:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh yes, thanks, it comes flooding back. thought I'd dabbed that but that was a while back. Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Edit restrictions

Rich, edits like this ~~by Smackbot~~ are in breach of your edit restriction. Perhaps this wasn't clear, so let me make it clear: cosmetic changes that don't have demonstrated consensus are not acceptable even if combined with non-cosmetic changes. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, what's this about? Rd232 ^talk 12:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell they were made by SmackBot? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't, they were by me, the bot is innocent. The second edit was delinking April 2009. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The date delinking was clear; it was the wikify tag which was confusing - there seems no cause for it there. Rd232 ^talk 15:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one link, to Ghana. Rich Farmbrough, 07:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The edit restriction applies to all accounts, so it doesn't really matter whether they were made by SmackBot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the timely note. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Similarly, there doesn't seem to be a good reason for the "wikify" added here. Fram (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No links in the article? Rich Farmbrough, 06:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps Template:Dead end is a more specific one though? Fram (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 39

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:

Rich Farmbrough at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 19:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Property High Court

Nice edit: "born May 2007" ... [3]. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about talk page tagging

I am currently trying to determine a way to find all the articles related to United States topics without any banners. Are you aware of anyway to do that? --Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it would be possible to find many of them by looking for key strings, such as [[Category:American... Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

But of course one would have to remove the bannered articles, much easier with a full DB dump. Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I have pulled in a couple of categories but there are dozens more yet to look through. The United States cat is so big its doubtful I could pull the whole thing at once anyway (around 400000 individual articles not counting the ones that show up in multiple US related categories). Do you know of a way I can tell AWB or something else to look for a blank page when scrolling through a category of articles? Its easy enough to "find" things in a page but I dont know how to find pages that are blanks without manually going through them. I cheated the last time by using excel to add [[ ]] around the talk page and the pasting it to a sandbox and cutting out the non red links. Seems like there must be a better way though. --Kumioko (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering but how big is a full DB dump? Several gig I would imagine.--Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The partial dump is 27 G. Rich Farmbrough, 17:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Wow, thatll take a minute to download. Whats the difference between the partial and the full? --Kumioko (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full (current) includes talk pages and is about double the size. The d/l files are compressed 6G+ and 11G+. The full with history is much bigger over 100G compressed and apparently expanding to 20 times that. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

OK thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40

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:

Rich Farmbrough at 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Email system

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.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Email system. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - email. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at email - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footballer display

Template:Footballer display has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata lowercase parameters

You might have left me a note about your change a few weeks ago to allow all-uppercase or all-lowercase parameter names for {{persondata}}. Rjwilmsi 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I have to say I think it was a bad change, data is now harder to get out of the template for third party tools. It seems the change was made because one editor had a winge. Rjwilmsi 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot added Place of birth line to Persondata when the line was already present and correct

in this edit to Ian Muir. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(message to SB) Re my earlier message at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#SmackBot added Place of birth line to Persondata when the line was already present and correct. This is clearly not a one-off, see Willem Dafoe, Billy Ray Cyrus, etc. Probably duplicating the line does no harm, but probably I should have stopped it when I first noticed the problem before there were so many to be undone. Sorry if I've done the wrong thing. Struway2 (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, it's not a problem (i.e. does no harm, it's certainly a bug), and it's also easy to remove then, so either stopping or not stopping is is fine. Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

All bit edits reviewed and problems fixed. Bug

Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 09:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot

<boilerplate>I have reviewed a sample of changes in the good faith to confirm that (hopefuly) that SmackBot is operating reliably; this is for the overall good of Wikipedia and without malice.</boilerplate>. SmackBot appears to need some love when it comes to renaming of capitalised templates (eg. it's doing {{imdb}}→{{iMDB title}}; {{ibdb}}→{{iBDB name}}).[4]~~[5]~~[6] I have no wish to maintain a discourse on the value or intent of the edits, but would just like to know that it has been fixed. The second edit (now that I look at it), also links to United States (WP:OVERLINK#Overlinking and underlinking). Again, I do not wish to have a discourse on the merit, but would just like to know that it is fixed. —Sladen (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an AWB bug already reported. (Incidentally it is preserving the case of the first letter as requested...) I think you pasted the same link twice? ~~

(WP:GAME). Second link fixed now, thank you. —Sladen (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mm no I think they introduced the case preserving code as a result of the recent hubbub, and didn't take into account acronyms. Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I brought up the issue of the iMDB and IBDB to the AWB developers and it is a direct result of the communities decision that AWB not change the case that was resident. So this is not a problem with smackbot or AWB, this is a direct result of the communities decision. --Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a case of writing against the letter not the spirit. The spirit of the (repeated) requests by (dozens of) editors was to just stop messing around with redirects and apply some sane human oversight about what bots were doing—that this was pushed right to the wire and had to be codified in a sub-optimal way was a failure on the part of the bot authors and bot operators. What is really wanted is to just "do the obvious"; here, the ideal would be to remain fully lowercase (in this case) so that the net diff is simply appending " name" (which is what a human would do), leaving {{imdb name|…}} or {{ibdb name|…}}. —Sladen (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the spirit was whatever I did there was still someone finding fault. But hey, that's Wikipedia, and I'm used to it. What I'm not used to is the stalking and every edit being touted as a trigger for arbcom, desysopping, banning or blocking. But I guess I will have to get used to that too, since people have discovered the joy of posting my name on ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 06:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally what you are requesting there is exactly what SmackBot was doing before people started the troubles. Rich Farmbrough, 06:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Who are these "Dozens of"??? Rich Farmbrough, 06:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

See, User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Index. Please stop presuming people have malintent everytime they bother to report simple, quick, fixable issues (you make a lot of edits, and you get a proportionate amount of notifications because of their general nature). It takes effort to report an issue to you, and then ten times that effort to deal with the predictable argument/rant that follows. Yet again, a simple request (which sounds like it already has a bug open at AWB? If so it is solved for me...) is being turned into a generic-Rich-Farmbrough-vs-the-whole-of-Wikipedia-polices rant. Finally, please stop interlacing/refactoring others' replies (this has previously been requested), and you, being an experienced editor should not need telling more than once. —Sladen (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First I don't assume you have malintent. I am just very frustrated that you have not learned to avoid this hyperbole. Especially as others pick-it up and believe it. If you say "dozens" you should be prepared to back it up with a list of at least 24 people. Otherwise you are just making it up from a vague memory of a lot of people saying some stuff which was negative. In exactly the same way 35 threads on my talk page was characterized as "35 complaints". Usually I let this stuff wash over me, but really it has gone a bit far.

Secondly, please read the edit box for this page. Also some of that text appears below the save button. It is common practice to split comments in order to reply to the issues separately. Rich Farmbrough, 08:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And thirdly the point that SmackBot got blocked for changing one {{silicate to {{Silicate explains why people are paranoid. Additionally doing good fixes that there is no-one or only one or two against has been declared no longer enough, they must, it seems have documented consensus. In this climate those who do the mass-tidying up are ditching the tiny improvements to save the small ones. Rich Farmbrough, 08:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Smackbot incorrectly changed "update after" date

Smackbot updated Leap second losing the date in the UpdateAfter template (diff). This means that the "dated flag" is showing for future events. Since this may lose information in a lot of articles I have stopped SmackBot. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll look into it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42

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:

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by D'oh! at 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Database scan

I don't know if it's easy but I would like to have an idea of how many articles that transclude {{Infobox officeholder}} or one of its 150+ redirects have |honorific-prefix= with <br> (or its variations) and how many don't.

Check Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#honorific-prefix. Is it possible that you make a database scan for me? Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be easy. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delayed by a slight diversion. Rich Farmbrough, 11:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Found 6 with just a break. Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It was about 4384, as far as I could tell. Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot & Gurnee mills

On the entry for Gurnee Mills, the bot tried to add a date for a dl template, but ended up with more templates instead of the actual month and year. "{{Dead link|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}" I manually updated it. Andyross (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, known bug, awaiting bot approvals to implement fix. Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If I configure FixSyntax() to replace |date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} when within ref tags will that work for your AWB usage? I'm not 100% happy to circumvent the MediaWiki bug, but it doesn't seem likely it will be fixed soon. Rjwilmsi 07:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no. I am using "check after" to look for the subst:string - normally I replace it using a rule but if I manually brought that rule back without the main dating rules I would be saving "without dating a tag" too often. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

rev 7314 I've added that logic anyway, since the problem might occur for other AWB users, so it's there if you would like to make use of it. Rjwilmsi 11:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, well it was something I asked for, and given the MW bug is good, but right now it would mean SB making zero edits instead of a very few. Rich Farmbrough, 00:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Could you walk me through how this prevents you updating to the latest SVN? –xeno^talk 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, traditionally SB only saved if a non-minor find and replace was used. This virtually eliminated saves which didn't date tags (down to about 0.3% and in due course would have been a lot less (maybe 0) - by means of tagging many more rules minor). Now it is only doing GFs it needs a different mechanism, and that is checking for {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} after the changes have been made. Otherwise it will save on other GFs - whcih is fine by me, but would doubtless resulted in stops, blocks and other assorted problems. Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Having said that I am working with it now, just not exclusively. I have written a patcher this evening, and realised that I can just keep multiple versions in different directories (d'oh!) so a little more work and I will be able to have my cake while CBM eats it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Best regards, –xeno^talk 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

When you're not too busy dealing with that time sump ANI, there are a bunch of articles in this category and through (for example, all the subjects on List of colonial governors of Massachusetts), many of which are in mdy or a mixture of dmy/mdy dates, which could do with being aligned to dmy dates per WP:TIES. You can probably tag them all {{EngvarB}} while you are at it. Thanks, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Doubt I am allowed to put invisible tags on pages. Rich Farmbrough, 17:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Editing request

It appears that there are some 6,000 articles which are linked month-year (ie [[September 2008]]). Could you in some way integrate unlinking these into your AWB schedule? I can only manage 50 a day, at which rate it will take me over 3 months. Gracias amigo. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We will get this done. Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Legislatures of Italy

Hullo Mr. Farmbrough. I've started these. I was wondering if you could use AWB to edit III to XVI. Basically I need you to change the word "Governo" in each article to Government of and the word "Composizione del governo" to Composition of the government and also to remove the word "Dal" from appearing in each article. This would make it a lot easier. Perhaps you could also work out what the months are in english or check on Italian wikipedia to code something to do those too. E.g change "luglio" to July, "febbraio" to February, "marzo" to "March", "maggio" to "May" etc. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or no?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no problems with doing that. Rich Farmbrough, 00:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Done. I suggest the empty sections are removed. Rich Farmbrough, 06:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Excellent, thanks for that. Two things though "&endash;" is showing. Can you ensure it only shows the - not the coding? And it seems the custom for the govenrments is e.g Leone II Cabinet. Can you use AWB to change the links e.g from Government of Gasperi V to De Gasperi V Cabinet (his surname is De Gasperi not Gasperi) and Government of Rumor IV to Rumor IV Cabinet etc? User:Acterion is sorting out the page titles of the article he transferring from it wiki last night to ...Cabinet.. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're like Will Farell in Austin Powers 2.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do a search on "workplace" please

A while back you kindly did a search for me on section titles and redirect names containing the word "abuse". Please can you do exactly the same but with "workplace" this time.--Penbat (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can do that... redirects started. Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Redirects here. Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

thx i have grabbed it. And section titles ?--Penbat (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

RE: Archimedes, Inc.

FYI - As someone who has worked on the page, it might interest you know that Archimedes, Inc. has been nominated for deletion. At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archimedes,_Inc. Danieldis47 (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Danieldis47, that as you have a financial relationship with the subject, you are concerned that your client's article could get deleted, but indiscriminate canvassing is discouraged. It is perfectly acceptable to notify contributors who have added substantial content, but notifying every user who has only done so much as fixing a typo (in this case, for a COI template), is borderline inappropriate.--res Laozi speak 02:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My good friend, am I being being stalked? What proof do you have of any so-called "financial relationships"? Why are you so averse to other editors knowing of your own good work? If something is "borderline," but only that, then why do you feel the need to sound an alarm? Thanks! Danieldis47 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse noticing a clear guideline violation with "stalking", which is a serious charge; as an editor involved with the discussion, I have a right to reply. Campaigning for !votes is against established consensus, and is considered a form of talk page spamming. Notifications should be given to users who have made substantial contributions to articles, not every editor in the editing history, especially if said controbution was just a typo correction. As admin User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry first brought up on AfD and then WP:SI, you've admitted to being paid to write articles on your Twitter account. This is an explicit violation of the neutrality policy.--res Laozi speak 03:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. As you can see, my messages are entirely non-partisan and neutral, and they total only four in number. I do not know these editors and I have no idea what their opinions on anything are. They are simply the editors who made some edit(s) to the Archimedes, Inc. page. In addition, I should note there are no mentions of any payments of any sort for anything on my Twitter account. Cheers! Danieldis47 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to notify users who have made substantial edits, like the anon IP. Notifying everyone in the edit history, even if their edit is as minor as a typo correction, is disruptive. I understand your frustration that your client's article is being nominated for deletion, but please refrain from breaking behaviour guidelines.

You posted a message specifically linking to the article (that you've now removed), but another post remains: http://twitter.com/#!/rslate Just put the finishing touches on a trio of Wikipedia pages for a client in Texas]" (which will likely soon disappear as well). But as Chase me Ladies pointed out, and as you've admitted on the AfD and your own talk page, there is overwhelming evidence that you have been paid to edit by a client, please do not obfuscate the point. Also, let's keep and continue the discussion on your talk page, and not bother other users. Don't let this be a race to have the last word. --res Laozi speak 03:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I have made no admissions about payment for anything in the locations you list. Go and see. (And I have not removed any links from anywhere - I would not even know how to do that in Twitter, if it's even possible...) Now, let's keep and continue the discussion elsewhere, and not bother other users. Don't let this be a race to have the last word. Danieldis47 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your admissions on Wikipedia are still there, but yes, let us end it. :) --res Laozi speak 04:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Imdb

Any chance SmackBot can replace uses of {{imdb}} with {{IMDb name}}? This only needs to be done in passing rather than en masse, but it's not ideal for an ambiguous template redirect to have so many transclusions. PC78 (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can add any template redirects you think must be bypassed in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template_redirects. I added this one in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template_redirects#Other_templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PC78 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was doing so, however SmackBot got blocked for changing case so these are currently dropped. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally mixed case trademarks are deprecated at MOSCAPS. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

References section added more than once

This one is similar, but for the references section. It was already present in the article, but SmackBot saved the edit anyway (and did not fix the problem) [7]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not priority

This is a cumulative diff of several consecutive smackbot edits [8]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical

Would have had time to sort this, but, Alas! Ani come first. Rich Farmbrough, 05:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Misread this: this will be fixed in a complete re-write of this functionality planned for RSN. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Too seriously and not seriously enough

Can I urge editors to take things both less and more seriously.

Take me, yourself, the apparatus, the process, policy, procedure, guidelines, hierarchy less seriously.

Take the work - the projects - the content , the presentation, the inclusiveness more seriously.

Do less and do more

Find out what you do that doesn't contribute to the encyclopaedia, and stop doing it.

Find out what you do that improves it and work out how to do it 10 times better, how do 10 times as much, how to do it 10 times faster, or preferably all three.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Piping unambiguous wikilinks

Please do not pipe/convert Wikilinks such as "Boston, Massachusetts" to "Boston, Massachusetts". The latter is twice as long in the source to the editor, and more ambiguous to the reader (WP:EGG, WP:ASTONISH). Other editors have previously notified you of this behaviour. Please alter your scripts to do the opposite, where possible. —Sladen (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How it this egg or astonish? I click Boston, I get Boston Mass - I didn't expect Boston Lincs. With the other layout I click Mass I get Boston. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Nor do I appreciate you hunting through my edits for something to take issue s with. Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I wasn't going to comment, but I quite agree; not on Boston, necessarily, but you do it on other cities. {{city-state}}, which (long before deletion) used to provide a templated form of this, producing Boston, Massachusetts, was repurposed before recently being deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you did do this on some articles I had watchlisted previously; this is not related to any current dispute between us, or the {{ucase}} problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of creating two links Boston, Massachusetts was a disputed one, quite reasonably as the visual distinction between Boston, Massachusetts and Boston, Massachusetts is slight at best, and the discussion changed my mind on the unambiguous nature of that transition. However the slightly leaner linking philosophy now prevalent would discourage the Mass link there anyway. The template was source-code cruft in many ways, of limited applicability, and it is probably good that it has gone. I would be interested to know if you agree that this is EGG or ASTONISH or if you have a different reason for finding it a poorer format. Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Any chance we could just have a quick "thank you for pointing it out, I've now fixed it"? —Sladen (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that there's something to fix. Far from the dismissive attitude that editors (myself included) have criticised, Rich is attempting to discuss the matter and explain why he regards his changes as helpful. If nothing other than complaisance will satisfy you, that is rather dismissive. —David Levy 16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in "hunting through my edits for something to take issue s with."? —Sladen (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's certainly the impression I get. And I was hoping we were putting this stuff behind us. Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Rich's frustration is quite understandable, and he clearly is making a sincere effort to work through it. You're entitled to criticise edits with which you disagree, but Rich is equally entitled to defend them. —David Levy 16:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW if while stub-sorting etc I find a link to "Boston, Massachusetts" or Buffalo, New York I would usually change it to "Boston, Massachusetts, United States." or "Buffalo, New York, United States", if it's the first mention of the place (usually in opening/only sentence/paragraph of a stub), without first checking whether Boston, Massachusetts redirects to Boston. OK, Boston is a special case, being that rare phenomenon of a US city without state name in its article name, so in this particular case I'd be pipping to a redirect, but in general it seems better: each word goes where it says. PamD (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "avoid linking ... the names of major geographic features and locations," (WP:OVERLINK#What generally should not be linked). I believe that a state or country probably falls within this. —Sladen (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I incline to the view in your second sentence. The combination of that with the proximity of the sublocation is why I don't leave the state linked. Not a biggie either way. Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    - I'm happy to agree (for the sake of closing) this that it's no biggie. If it is no biggie, and already in the format Fort William, Scotland, please could it be left as-is. There are other, more valuable and less controversial edits to be making which AWB is much better suited to, and the full form helps when articles are printed. —Sladen (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop de-canonicalising links where there is matching link and article text. These edits reduce the usefulness of the encyclopedia. —Sladen (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing this, please get a clear, documented, consensus, or stop and work on edits that are uncontroversial. —Sladen (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in persondata

Thank you for updating the persondata here; a quick note however that per WP:Persondata the birth and death dates should be in the format DD Month YYYY format or the Month DD, YYYY (with the month spelled out completely). Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a good point. Since Persondata is for machine reading, however, I'm inclined to think YYYY-MM-DD is harmless ( I don't say preferable, because so many instances have spelled out dates that applications will need to deal with at least the formats supported by the time.php functionality.) Rich Farmbrough, 16:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

How would the program know whether you had used the YYYY-MM-DD format or the YYYY-DD-MM format? Using the Steven L. Thorsen example linked above, how would it know whether to read the date as September 11, 1953 or November 9, 1953? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no YYYY-DD-MM format. That's why YYYY-MM-DD is the only all-numeric format allowed on WP. (There are however thousands of cases of mm/dd/yy and dd/mm/yy - which I started cleaning up on or about the 24th of September. Must get back to that.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Given that explanation it seems even more important to use the full month examples provided at WP:PERSONDATA. You happen to know that the date will only be read as YYYY-MM-DD, but the average editor likely will not. There is nothing stopping said editor from adding the birthdate in YYYY-DD-MM format in persondata, which will be incorrectly interpreted as YYYY-MM-DD by WP programs. This is specifically why it is requested to spell out the month in order to avoid any possible confusion. So, while your way of editing the date may not cause any issues with how the program reads the date, it can certainly cause issues with editors viewing the style you have chosen to use and misapplying it in other persondata templates. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about persondata or why it is calling for long date format but there is no system in the world that uses YYYY-DD-MM. –xeno^talk 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects ending in punctuation

Rich, it seems you are (automatically?) creating redirects (see WP:AN). It was noticed that some of these redirects contain a useless final punctuation (e.g. Geometric mean,). Is there a mistake in the script? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as ever there's more cruft behind the cruft. I have just tidied some 100+ articles with strange things going on in the bolding itself. Spotting commas and stops is better left to automated means than my eyes so I have pulled them out automatically, plus just about everything else that is problemful. It's still hard to see if this is a bottable task just yet, since the variability is so great. Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Rich. Just letting you know that the thread at AN is apparently still vaguely active, as Fram has just brought up your recent redirect creations there. What method are you using to create these redirects? It seems that your using the bolded text in the lede of the article to decided what redirects to create. This suggests to me that you're using semi-automated or automated methods. If you're using semi-automated (or automated), why is this not clear in your edit summary? If you're using semi-automated, then why are you making mistakes like the ones mentioned at AN? They aren't particularly difficult to spot. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RF, probably related: can you describe why you created these redirects? They are all from a bold text in the lead. And all strangely doubling by abbreviation. How could that be a serious "alternate name"? Algorithm involved?

-DePiep (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are reasonable redirects, people may well cut and paste these. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Nope. Not a chance of their being reasonable redirects. They reflect two different possible redirects; for example, the first would reflect Eusebius of Angers and Bruno of Angers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two as in disambiguation? Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Two is in (in this case) Bruno of Angers redirecting to Eusebius of Angers, with possible links from (disambiguations) Bruno and Eusebius. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I may be wrong but it seems he was never known as Bruno of... either Eusebius of... or Eusebius Bruno of... The parenthetical can reasonably be part of an identifier, whether recycled from Wikipedia, generated externally, or from the same source as we have it. Nonetheless I am avoiding parentheticals. Rich Farmbrough, 05:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In any case, I'll probably nominate the redirects for deletion shortly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"people may well cut and paste these" you write. RF: how, when and where is that? I have never read such a Wikipedia-usage in this. How is that a reasonable alternative? And, of course: what automateed algorithm did you use? -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustave Ferdinand Niebaum

Another duplicate - already at Gustave Niebaum. Made into redirect and added the ANB as "Further reading". PamD (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added his middle name to the lead. Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

and Eugene Jacques Bullard. Enough for one night. PamD (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at pre-empting these, by creating redirects, unfortunately not all biogs have the middle name or initial in an obvious place. Rich Farmbrough, 03:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

R. H. Macy another, in the opposite direction - ANB had shorter name than WP: seemed highly unlikely that we hadn't got anything on him. PamD (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this too, with Virgil Clarence Blum and Horace L. Hunley. I'll prob fix more as time allows, just wanted to make sure you were aware of the situation. KConWiki (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw that on my recently usable watchlist! Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I worry about the ones which are slipping through the net: I've picked up several while stub-sorting, because I've now started to search on surname or other terms to check whether they're already listed, and obviously one other editor, at least, is doing so too. But not everyone will spot them. How many of these stubs are going to get developed into duplicate articles, to the detriment of the encyclopedia? Your idea of (semi-?)automatically creating redirects from bolded names in article leads seems very useful, I've always felt that we should be much more lavish in creating redirects from alternative versions, especially with/without middle names/initials. Thinking of it, perhaps when your bot creates an article for Foo Middlename Foooo it should also create redirects from Foo M. Foooo, Foo M Foooo and Foo Foooo? Then if any of those can't be created because they already exists, it could flag up the need for possible hatnote or dab page? PamD (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the last of them are now out of Category:Stubs. Some will have gone out into the world as duplicate articles, I suspect. Another time you're doing a project like this you need a better algorithm (automated or human) to check whether people are already in the encyclopedia under a different variation of their name. I added a couple of them to dab pages while I was stub-sorting them, too. There seems to be a huge and useful job needing to be done out there, creating redirects (or adding to dab pages or hatnotes) from variations of names: both the full form of name as spelled out in bold in many articles (but coping intelligently with the ones like 'Joseph "Joe" Bloggs'), and the shorter forms of names for 'Joe Foo Bloggs', where the "Foo" may be absent, or "F." or "F". (Perhaps not the latter as against WP:MOS? Not sure!). Redirects are so valuable in (a) helping the reader find what they want and (b) helping the careless editor avoid creating a duplicate article (ie helping them find the existing one even if they haven't thought to look carefully for it!). PamD (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANB

I think what you are doing in adding these articles is very helpful, but I wonder if you intend to leave them as is, or to add more information. For example, I think the highest priorities would be to indicate why what they did was important enough to get them into the ANB in the first place, which is not always obvious. You're really in the best position to do this right at thetime you are making the article with the ANB entry in front of you--to do it later is considerably harder. And, if possible, it is very good to also have a freely-accessible reference. and google books makes it fairly easy. I think if you did these two things it would slow you down to maybe half speed, but it would make your work many times as useful. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, sadly I do not have access to ANB, merely to some of their pages that list articles. This is a fairly small exercise, therefore, and may well be worth revisiting if I do get ANB access. In fact at $14.95 for a month it is tempting. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Then if you want to continue this way, you will still be able to find references for almost all of them --certainly for all of the 19th century people--in google books, so you can fill in the material from there. Please, do this before making other articles. If ANB is need for filling them in, others do have this access. I, for example, do have this access, but my priority to is to try to save those articles which are nearing their time-limits. I have for some time been trying to arrange a system for active article creators like you to have access to resources like this, but it is apparently not one of the Foundation's priorities. nAnyway, you oribably do not need to pay for it if you are near a decent public or academic library. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll investigate that. I am aware that a lot of people are more likely to expand an article than create one, so having a little structured data available is quite useful from that point of view. The other "update" pages simply have hte name and birth/death dates, which I judged insufficient information. ANB also have an article of the day, which perhaps should get mentioned daily at the biography project. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It appears I should have access to loads of good stuff, but appearances are deceptive in this case... Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In the UK, most if not all public libraries subscribe to various online services which members can then access from their homes: I have access to Dictionary of National Biography and the archive of The Times. Do US libraries provide a similar service? As ANB is also published by Oxford University Press I'd think it possible? PamD (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK Pam. Unfortunately none of the services you mention accept my barcode. I'll talk to the Library on Monday. Rich Farmbrough, 08:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ah, I suppose the work on ANB made me think you were the other side of the pond. You need to find your local library service's equivalent of http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Community_and_living/Libraries/Libraries__online_information_resources.aspx - you can find the library page from the local council's website. I think that you might have to use their particular link, as well as your bar code, for it to be recognised. And, sadly, ANB isn't included. But you'll probably have access to The Times, ODNB, the online equivalents of Grove's dictionaries of Art and Music, Who's Who/Who was Who, Britannica, and the British Library's 19th-century newspapers (lots of local and regional titles). Enjoy! PamD (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I'm really working on migrating DNB articles form Wikisource. The ANB was just a "few moments while I create any missing stubs" I seem to have the same package as you, but I renewed my card a few weeks ago, I expect they will tell me "it's not on the system yet" or some such. Rich Farmbrough, 08:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

but this is exactly what I have been unsure about. It is in my opinion, better to have a sketch with basic information than nothing, but I think it is better to have such a sketch than an outdated biased interpretative article that ignores everything found out during the last 100 years about the person and the events he was engaged in (I deliberately use "he" to indicate the pervasive bias)

However, there might be a compromise solution: since wikisource is, after all, open, we could put in a sketch and a link: for further details, as they were see in 1900, see [wikisource link] instead of actually including the text. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no... I'm not being clear, the Wikisource stuff is a complete transfer of content, slight modernising of language, linking, reffing, as the first stage. I would expect the article to be brought up to date by reference to ONDB and other sources. It should be clear what comes from where. Wikisource is in aspic, Wikipedia is living - if the Wiksource content ends up entirely superseded, then that's fine. Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Personal attack?

If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at this comment and telling me if you think it is appropriate? Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be appropriate, but having said that it's not really in the realm of a personal attack, though perhaps closer than would be ideal. It looks like neutral parties are active on talk page already, so I think it should all calm down. I will say that opening of the thread was not helpful, and I will also say that any blanket prohibition of You Tube looks rather outdated, although there are many factors that make it an undesirable source, not so much unreliable. Rich Farmbrough, 03:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think the larger debate about YouTube can be sorted out with an RFC, which is the direction things seem to be taking. But, that comment, and not for the first time, makes all of this seem as if it is some irrational whim on my part to simply be divisive and obstructionist. When I deleted the comment, and gave the user a warning for a personal attack, the comment was reinstated, and the warning was removed with a snarky comment. So, rather than remove the comment again, or reinstate the warning, I wanted an administrator not involved in the larger debate to take a look. I have no grudge against Athene cunicularia, but I would prefer she keep personal comments to herself. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did see that. I am watching the page if that is of any solace. Rich Farmbrough, 04:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Frankly, no, it isn't. I would like to know why such an inflammatory message, which adds nothing to the discussion, a discussion which was, at that point, moribund, is allowed to stay. It seems clearly intended to offend and start trouble, reinserting it, after I objected, and removing the warning with a snarky comment, makes her intention clear. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lastname, Firstname

Do you have approval for creating redirects from Lastname, Firstname to Firstname Lastname. I don't consider it harmful, but I thought you were under community sanctions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was wrong; that wasn't covered by the approved community sanctions. You still probably should have gotten approval. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all the head name of an article in ANB. So reasonably prominent and guaranteed usage. We did talk about approval for AWB runs but never got anywhere wit that. Right now I wanted to get this miniproject out of the way so that I can get back to DNB. Well it is almost done. Rich Farmbrough, 07:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I still think they are improbable for someone to type in, even by copy/paste. However, none of them are misleading until someone disambiguates (or changes the "primary use") of the Firstname Lastname article and doesn't handle the corresponding Lastname, Firstname. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note sure I understand, if we decide John Smith₁ is the primary topic for "John Smith", instead of John Smith₀ then he will, except in unusual cases, be the primary topic for "Smith, John". The same applies to dabs. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Error?

Might be a one-ff but stopping since I wasn't sure. Bot replaced refimprive tage with one based on religion. Probably an easy fix but figured it was better to give you the heads up over having it throw the religion based template up on multiple unrelated articles.[9] Nice work besides the hiccup.Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 07:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes stopping is best. 750 edits to review is much better than 7500! Rich Farmbrough, 08:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Problem fixed and all reviewed manually. Rich Farmbrough, 15:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Femto_Bot_4#Discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–xeno^talk 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automated/semi-automated creation requires BRFA

Please see Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass article creation and seek BRFA for any subsequent mass creation tasks; I think redirects are probably included in the spirit of this rule. –xeno^talk 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40

Template: . *

Edits by:

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Gigs at 02:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template redirect -> template

This is in breach of the editing restriction. It does reflect a spelling correction renaming of the template, but nonetheless, it's exactly the sort of thing you're supposed not to do. Particularly as there are other issues arising at the moment, I must ask you to cease that specific change unless you can show consensus for it. Rd232 ^talk 11:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I appreciate it's a pain to have to show consensus for things like that, but you must be able to identify things which need it. If it's too much hassle to get/show consensus for them, well then just don't do them. It's quite clear that you have loads of other useful stuff to be getting on with that doesn't raise such issues. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is on the basis of red-links appearing on some of the category pages - corrections to those red-links cause potential longer term problems. It's a template move I didn't really want to do anyway, but I figured the guy asked nicely, seems to matter to him, and it does no real harm so I moved it. It is indeed a "long standing template" which I created in 2007, and have improved considerably since. But it is no big deal, any problems will resolve themselves in five years as the categories age off. I shall remove it from my list. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Sockpuppet to me

Thx for the quick revert. (I was still figuring out what to do when I saw it was gone. ;p) I can only say, if I'm going to be a sockpuppet, that's the guy I'd want to be puppeting (?) for. ;D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got a slightly less elevated puppetmaster. Rich Farmbrough, 07:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A correction and a question

As you are probably aware, I regularly spotcheck your contributions, and am glad to say that I haven't found real problems anymore (i.e. things that you should have checked and catched yourself instead of others). A few small remarks and questions: is there a reason that you remove the comment from the Persondata template, like here? And I think there is a small error in your script, where you first use the defaultsort for the persondata template, and then correct the defaultsort, instead of the other way around, e.g. here. Similarly, here you correct the defaultsort but not the same entry in the persondata. Perhaps you can reverse the order of checking these? Fram (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the code is designed to not create the persondata with the comment, which is rather redundant, rather than to remove it, however I wanted to get the run complete in order to reboot, so I didn't worry about it over-much. Should not happen in future. As to the name= field being taken from DEFAUTLSORT, this is a good AWB fix generally for a blank name= field, but is subject to a number of problems which mean it will need to be refined. In particular it should probably use its own DEFAULT sort calculation, compare that with the existing, and flag a difference. this is because DEFAULTSORT can include stuff like Elizabeth 02 which is not suitable as a name. the name of the article can of course be used. The issue around Persondata is that it is to some extent still a solution in search of a problem. this makes it hard to determine the correct way to implement it. Again if name= is redundant to DEFAULTSORT or DEFAULTSORT PAGENAME, then we should not be coding it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Allright, thanks. Fram (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cat sorting

This isn't a strong area for me, it's not clear to me why 2004 Governor General's Awards for example is sorting under "G". I poked around the templates it's transcluding, but I didn't see a defaultsort keyword in them. Gigs (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:Governor General's Awards]]
[[Category:2004 in Canada|Governor General's Awards]]
[[Category:2004 literary awards|Governor General's Awards]]

Content categories should always be explicit, and almost always are. Rich Farmbrough, 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41

Template: . *

Edits by:

Femto Bot at 07:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Rjwilmsi/test at 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at .
Last edit by anyone was by Rjwilmsi/test at 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Fram at 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Fram at 08:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Fram at 08:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Fram at 08:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Fram at 08:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40

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:

Gigs at 13:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Gigs at 13:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Gigs at 13:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Secher

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

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

WikiProject report: WikiProject California

Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

Election report: The countdown begins

Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41

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:

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 13:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 13:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 05:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 05:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42

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:

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 08:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 05:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 05:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the the

Thank you for creating the list of duplicate words at User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp113. Now (deep breath), how much extra effort would it be to create a list of the 16219 articles that contain "the the"? This is one of my pet projects; I've found and fixed several thousand "the the" errors using AWB Google search and regexps, but the AWB Google search is frustrating to work with. A full list would keep me quiet for a while! -- John of Reading (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm don't want you quiet, want you active! I can make the list easy enough though. Did you find any false positives previously? Rich Farmbrough, 09:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Oh it's that many lines, not necessarily that many articles. Rich Farmbrough, 09:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

There are a few false positives, mainly thanks to the band The The. I use "Skip if only minor replacements made" to catch that one. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed, but this is only "the the" not "The the", "the The" if "The The" etc. Rich Farmbrough, 09:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

16219 examples of lowercase "the the"? Oh dear! So this won't help with "the The Times" and such like. The only false positives I can think of for lowercase "the the" will be in quotations and web page titles faithfully copied into Wikipedia, with or without a "sic". -- John of Reading (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but no but yes. That's the number of raw hits from the database dump, includes edit summaries (latest per page), multiple lines per page, templates, and template docs, and WP pages and various other stuff. Looking more like 3000 articles. Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Let's go for it then. My sandbox would do. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK ETA 8 minutes. Rich Farmbrough, 10:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Got it! Thank you very much. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VernoWhitney RfA

Can you close VernoWhitney's RfA? Thanks! (looking for an admin to close; few online) Perseus!Talk to me 13:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

VernoWhitney at 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Xeno at 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 11:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by VernoWhitney at 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by VernoWhitney at 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 36

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:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 00:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38

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:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 12:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 39

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:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by D'oh! at 14:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42

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:

Rich Farmbrough at 08:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Fram at 10:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
D'oh! at 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 08:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
D'oh! at 10:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Fram at 10:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by D'oh! at 10:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESSENTIAL INFORMATION

Dear administrator Nagarjuna Akkineni - article semi protection requested. Unexplained dubious and disruptive edits BY -180.106.5.60 & 117.82.98.99 & Rajeshbieee -sock puppetry Administrator semi protection requested for this article immediately - USE TALK PAGE

(Roughstrikes (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Information - disruption

sure, will give explanation The user 180.106.5.60, 117.82.98.99 have used senseless edits and peacock terms like extraordinary, Most popular and extremly talented, to spoil the integrity and quality of article and are used excessively to defame and mask some of the facts in the article. some edits are also being done in removing the reflist Tag in the references section.

I request a strong scrutiny and surveillance on this article on the use of Unexplained edits by any IP ADDRESS AND USE OF PEACOCK TERMS. IN THE NEXT DUBIOUS EDIT USING PEACOCK TERMS OR DISRUPTING REFERENCE TAGS, PLEASE UNDO THE EDIT AND SEMI PROTECT THE ARTICLE. I am not interested in things like Height of the person. What I look for is a semi protection of this article. And peacock term which try to mislead real facts of the article.(Roughstrikes (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Information

further,

Is there any chance to add the first image in the below link, as a profile picture in the article.

how to make the first image of the actor in the link licenced??? to add this in wiki???

is it possible for u to add it??? - the first image of the actor in the below link

http://www.shortfun.com/akkineni-nagarjuna-5263

(Roughstrikes (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Image

sure will post image request,

but could this image be added???

http://www.extramirchi.com/events/filmfare-awards-south-exclusive-photo-gallery/attachment/56th-filmfare-south-awards-8/ or http://www.extramirchi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/56th-Filmfare-south-Awards-8.jpg

the above pic is not a copy right i guess, as it was freely uploaded by the originator

excluding person in white dress - who is KJ yesudas

(Roughstrikes (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Sloppy typo correction

Please be more careful when applying corrections, particularly in abbreviated journal names (which are highly variable). In this edit you created an error. I have fixed it for you. -- Scray (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I assumed it was "Proceedings". Rich Farmbrough, 05:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Malian Family Code

i forget now who the reflink bot is, but can you request it for this page.(Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Ok, but next time ask on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi parliamentary election, 2010

ah. wasnt sure it was your bot. but i just nominated this for itn and there are bare refs. thanks in advance.(Lihaas (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

I just ran reflinks on it, seems to have helped. Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

messed up "Update after" in Leap second again so that it displayed "invalid expression" in the article

messed up "Update after" in Leap second again so that it displayed "invalid expression" in the article diff. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember {{update after}} will have come from the list you provided me Rich, though I can't now remember where that list is, so I may be wrong. Rjwilmsi 11:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's on your list at User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp102. Rjwilmsi 11:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was, you pulled it at 8:02 this morning. I pulled it form my list a little earlier, but it was more problematic on my list, on the AWB list it was just ineffective. I had special rules too which were slightly off. Guess I must have been implementing them around 24th September... Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot adding date tag to Template:Disputed chem

Hi Rich. Template:Disputed chem does not have a parameter for the date. Hence, there is no use of such edits. --Leyo 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it does. It is used to add it to the hidden category Category:Accuracy disputes from November 2010. All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

…because you changed it and I did not remark it. --Leyo 13:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that'll be it. Seems like a lifetime ago. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Rivaroxaban

Blimey, that was quick! thanks! best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronicity! Rich Farmbrough, 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A note

Eliminating such edits would save time of the editors who monitor recent changes and their watchlists. May I ask you to do so? Materialscientist (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 11:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Not really. How about this kind of edits. Please do reconsider edits introducing minor corrections. Materialscientist (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BAGBot: Your bot request Mirror Bot

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35

Template: Approved.. *

Edits by:

Jarry1250 at 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Jarry1250 at 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38

Template: A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified). *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 12:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 12:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BAGBot: Your bot request SmackBot 38

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.[reply]

Hyphenating adjectival use of units

Hi, Just a suggestion that this could be done using the -adj switch in the Convert template. Cavrdg (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing what Cavrdg said, and also noting that per WP:MOSNUM and the Convert template, the parenthetical item does not take a hyphen. But for example, for your edit at Interstate 185 (Georgia), instead of

49.30-mile (79.34-km)

you could have typed

{{convert|49.30|mi|km|adj=on}}

which would have produced the output

49.30-mile (79.34 km)

Not only would this make things easier for you, but it would also make everything flow better within the current MOS and any future changes via the template. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's certainly an idea. I have mentioned at Mosnum. By the way I (any TP stalkers) improved pixiedust and will now be using it a lot.

The convert template is not magic pixie dust

Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In thr last couple of days you seem to have resumed using your main account for automated editing. Please stop, get approval for this process and use a separate account for this. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the speed of the editing which identifies them as bot-like, but the scale of the task. You were blocked for performing non-approved bot tasks on your main account, and you are still continuing to do so. This will likely lead to another block of your main account. Will you please stop and go to BRFA? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you visited BRFA recently? Rich Farmbrough, 09:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note BRFA approved, trial done. lets archive this. Rich Farmbrough, 10:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Aberdaron

Hi, the only obstacle stopping this current GA candidate from GA i think is the references. But isn't there a bot which can fill out the references with cite web |url|title=|publisher=|accessdate=? If so can you arrange it to sort out the references?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reply? I could have sworn there was a reference bot.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started off naming all the reference tags. I am now forbidden to finish that task. Rich Farmbrough, 17:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

At-risk BLPs

Hey, very good work, how did you generate that list?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I used the marvellous WP:AWB to generate a list of articles that contained risk-words, then wrote a little concordance type application to produce the report. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

big Oops - would you please correct?

There were two articles entitled "The White Company". I was attempting to change the title to the first "The White Company" to "The White Company, The Novel - and the second article with same name to: "The White Company (The Medieval Mercenaries). I failed and my attempts to correct failed. Can you please correct. All criticism accepted - am deeply sorrow - will not attempt again until I am fully versed in how to do it, etc., etc., etc. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The only people who don't make mistakes don't make anything. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You are very gracious to say that. Thanks again Mugginsx (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot - replacing _ in C type names

I noticed that smackbot is replacing _ characters in C typenames like size_t. It most recently did this in offsetof and I see that you fixed one of the changes. I wonder if a rule to exclude titles that match /.*_t$/ would be sufficient to avoid these pages. -- Autopilot (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked some time ago for an AWB feature, for Mod_perl etc, I'm pretty sure it was implemented, so should be extendable (extensible?) to type-names. Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Bug raised. Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Persondata

I have to admit I personally dont care where it goes but since it really doesnt affect the article and is usually not even displayed I admit there is a lot of logic ot your idea of putting at the end. Its really not a part of the article anyway other than to gather basic data about the articles for different reasons. What is the Person authority, Im not familiar with that one. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a template we should be adding as well? If so whats the template I would like to see it. --Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So is this template to allow those databases to draw data from WP or to link us to them? Does it have to be a government controlled source or would any website using a control number qualify (like Find a Grave, Hall of Valor, IMDB to name a few)? --Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your absolutely right about the Persondata. I can see uses coming out of it but until we have the majority of articles tagged rather than a minority it really is useless. --Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were definately making a dent, but with roughly only half done we still have a ways to go before useful becomes reliable I think. BTW, good luck selling this, folks in these parts dont cotton ta change much, they like things nice and quite like. --Kumioko (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick yeah me too...its seems that we wiki-ites have become victims of our own democratic process....wheres a good monarchy when you need one. --Kumioko (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: Template:Citation needed

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Template talk:Citation needed.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Spike Toronto 20:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

subpage User:Rich Farmbrough/temp17

Your subpage User:Rich Farmbrough/temp17 has a bunch of categories on it, or more accurately it is in a bunch of categories. I noticed because I was looking at the category for articles tagged for {{prose}} and it was in the oldest month. Did you want to change that to [[:category:... with the colon first so it is a link to the category or is it serving some purpose that didn't occur to me yet? RJFJR (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know. It served its purpose (which was creating those categories in the first place I think), so I have deleted it. Rich Farmbrough, 10:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thoughts on my proposed revision of this BLP?

Hi there Rich, I happened upon you via the Wikiproject Biography. After looking at the edit history and Talk page on the Jacqueline Hernández article, it became clear to me that this article could use some help. While I do not know the subject of this article personally, I happened to meet her very briefly in part of my work within her industry. While on the subject of WP, she mentioned that the existing version of the Wikipedia article about her was created by a family member of hers who - as you can see - was entirely unaware of the policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia.

In the interest of bringing this article up to Wikipedia's own WP:BLP standards, I've drafted a proposed revision which currently lives in my userspace here: User:Jeff_Bedford/Proposed_draft_of_Jacqueline_Hernandez_article

The main revisions I've made in this draft include:

rephrasing throughout in a neutral tone
citing reliable sources in places where citation needed tag was present
removing unsourced content
removing non-encyclopedic content
cleaning up formatting issues
I am also looking to obtain a photo which is licensed as CC Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, and will add this in the near future

Normally I'd implement these proposed changes myself; however I thought it would be helpful to get a second set of eyes prior to doing so. If you have a moment, might you be able to take a peek and advise on whether my draft is a step in the right direction? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly look like an acceptable article, I have made a few minor tweaks - I am assuming the Commissioner and "Judge" roles are voluntary work? It does still read a little like a CV but I suppose that's natural for that group of people. The trouble with good citing is the wikitext becomes hard to read, so I have pulled the refs to the end, if you don't like this back peddle one rev. Rich Farmbrough, 08:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for such constructive and detailed feedback - as time is a finite resource, I appreciate you taking yours in this way. Following your thoughts, I've implemented these changes in the article, and also left a note on the article's Talk page to explain the background of these edits. Kind Regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Why, when I planned ot get up at 5 this morning am I still on-wiki at 4:32? Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Addicted like me I guess. I have to get up in three hours. --Kumioko (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small request

Per your restrictions, would you please remove the capitalisation of {{death date}} from your AWB rules. See an example here, and in future please take more care when using AWB to spot these yourself. I've tried running the normal AWB, and it doesn't appear to change the template when testing at Anne Brontë. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll check it out. Rich Farmbrough, 10:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Yes this was one of the runs interrupted on the 24th September. So there may have been a few things still in rule-set. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Great, has this one been removed now? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Brilliant, thanks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply dumped all the useful but not essential rules. It means many more edits will happen, but I don't really have any control over that. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot using wrong syntax for update after

Update after uses numeric dates, see [10] for your bot's errors. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, currently fixing. Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And it continues [11]. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

null edit

He Rich, did I see correctly Smackbot making a null-edit here? No harm done, just harder for others to spot the changes made just before it... L.tak (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks. It's unfortunate there are a couple of factors making this more likely than otherwise would be the case, firstly having had a mammoth backlog to deal with, and secondly time I had meant to spend last month on making the rule-set more unlikely to make such edits was wasted in other pursuits. Thanks again for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Apology

I sincerely apologise that this dispute on a user's financial COI has spilled on to your talk page. It shouldn't have escalated the way it did, but the issue has been resolved. This is my first time encountering a paid editor, and I apologise for any incovenience that the dispute may have caused.--res Laozi speak 05:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem. Being paid is not the worst form of POV. Rich Farmbrough, 08:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Smackbot blocked

For making edits like this and this and this. You need to sort this out: it is a violation of your editing restrictions and cannot be that hard to make the bot respect them. Rd232 ^talk 16:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is reasonably hard, however if I hadn't lost hundreds of hours of my life to ANI it would be a lot better. Rich Farmbrough, 17:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

OK. Rd232 ^talk 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

Please fix. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TY. Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

CFWE-FM

Please do not use AWB on radio station articles. In categories they are listed alphabetically by call name, and the user who created them decided to sort them using all upper case letters. AWB "fixes" this by changing the letters following the first to lower case, but this causes a sorting error in the categories, which are case sensitive. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that particular category has DEFAULTSORT that is not appropriate regardless of case, since dropping the C is only useful in certain categories (sub cats of Canadian radio stations I suppose). Although it may seem contrary to common sense I believe the approach at CBCX-FM is better. This explicitly states the non-intuitive sort. The reason for AWB fixing the DEFAULTSORTS is precisely to make them case insensitive, until such time as MediaWIki provides a better sort. There is a MediWiki bug that applies, but I can't remember the number. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I realize that it doesn't follow policy/procedure, but for all the Canadian radio station categories to work, all the sorts have to be the same. I don't want to go through the hundreds changing them, do you? 117Avenue (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I do. Rich Farmbrough, 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

OK all done I think, but there are still anomalies, for example:

CFOU-FM
CFPP-FM
VF8012
CFTH-FM
CFTX-FM

Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Probably because it says [[Category:French-language radio stations in Quebec|French-language radio stations in Quebec]], it should be categorized under the V or the 8. Otherwise, good job on all the successful ones. 117Avenue (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Statements with common sense issues

Hi there, Rich! Category:Statements with common sense issues was correctly speedy deleted as C1, but Femto Bot recreated it. Could you reinstruct Femto Bot, and then redelete the category, please? --Bsherr (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the progress box and you will be fine. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Rich. --Bsherr (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 01:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 11:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 16:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 23:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 04:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
VernoWhitney at 22:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
CBM at 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
Kingpin13 at 12:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Kingpin13 at 10:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 13:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Xeno at 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 11:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
VernoWhitney at 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Xeno at 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 18:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Janet Bragg

On 7 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Janet Bragg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that aviator Janet Bragg was the first African-American woman to hold a Commercial Pilot Licence? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note 4

The journal no longer makes those claims. Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note 5

Dob 30 September 1686
Pob Temple Patrick, co. Antrim

Note 5

Saul Solomon

Kilcreggan, Scotland

STOP

Hey! Hi there! [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3

Test Sb message cleaning. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note to self

Revise user page. Rich Farmbrough, 11:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Project page

Extended content
Moved to the right placeRich Farmbrough, 23:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Editing restriction

As far as I can tell these edits [12] [13] [14] are a violation of your editing restriction. The thousands of other edits today with the same summary don't look particularly different. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them are adding DEFAULTSORT in addition to cosmetic changes - I'm not quite sure if that makes those edits OK. But there are some which don't have any non-cosmetic changes, eg template redirect ({{unreferenced stub}}) and that should definitely not be happening. Rich? Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are so many of them, the task of adding DEFAULTSORT should be run as an approved bot job. Many other edits from today seem to be duplicating the SmackBot task of dating maintenance templates, a task that also should have been run under a bot account. But the completely trivial edits (I linked three above) are obviously inappropriate given the editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably true. I'd like to hear what Rich has to say. Rd232 ^talk 02:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits re either

* Within the AWB only changes

* Changing the sort order of some radio categories

* Setting up and initialising some new dated categories

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

All three I linked are just capitalization and redirects, which your edit restriction specifically prohibits. I'm sure you're aware that that sort of edit is what led to the restriction in the first place. These edits also violate AWB rule number 4.

You also ignored the issue where you inappropriately ran bot jobs on your main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at more edits, I noticed [15], which replaced "God is is" with "God it is". That was a manually reviewed edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be God is.Rich Farmbrough, 02:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Right - but you saved it anyway. That makes it look like you are not appropriately reviewing your manual edits. Given that you made over 2000 edits on this account since the beginning of 2010-11-16, that may not be surprising. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I misread it, I remember thinking at the time that "is is" might be appropriate since the para was about temporal transcendence.Rich Farmbrough, 08:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38

Template: Approved for trial (5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kumioko at 04:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot capitalising tags unnecessarily

some users have complained about smackbot captilising tags unecessary, you might want to check up the robot--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks I shut the bot down, but not fast enough. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Running bot job under main account

Here are three more edits, since my first post today, which are actually SmackBot edits run under your main account [16] [17] [18]. It is clear from your edit history that you are actually performing the SmackBot task to date the "criticism section" template, but running it from your main account instead of the approved bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Waste of breath

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You must be great fun at parties.

Here's the XML:

      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{criticism-section}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Criticism section}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{controversy-section}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Criticism section}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{old}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>dated\ info</Find>
        <Replace>Update after</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>update-inline</Find>
        <Replace>Update after</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>update\ needed</Find>
        <Replace>Update after</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>oldfact</Find>
        <Replace>Update after</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>update-section</Find>
        <Replace>update section</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>({{Update after\|\d\d\d\d\|\d+\|\d+)\|date=[a-z]* \d+}}</Find>
        <Replace>$1}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>({{Update after\|)[a-z]* (\d\d\d\d\|\d+\|\d+)\|date=[a-z]* \d+}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>({{Update after\|)[a-z]* (\d\d\d\d\|\d+\|\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>({{Update after\|)date=[a-z]* (\d\d\d\d\|\d+\|\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>({{Update after\|)date=[a-z]* (\d\d\d\d\|\d+\|\d+)\|date=[a-z]* \d+}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>Update\ after\|2010\|October</Find>
        <Replace>Update after|2010|10</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>Update\ after\|2010\|November</Find>
        <Replace>Update after|2010|11</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>Update\ after\|2010\|September</Find>
        <Replace>Update after|2010|09</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>Update\ after\|2010\|August</Find>
        <Replace>Update after|2010|08</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=May (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|05}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=October (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|10}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{update after\|date=December (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2|12}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{update after\|date=November (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2|11}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=September (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|09}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=August (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|08}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=July (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|07}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=March (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|03}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=June (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|06}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=January (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|01}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{update after\|date=(\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{update\ after}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|2010|11|16}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=April (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|04}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{update}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update|date=November 2010}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\[\[Category:Wikipedia\ articles\ in\ need\ of\ updating]]</Find>
        <Replace />
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{(outdated|Out of date|outofdate)\|</Find>
        <Replace>{{Out of date|</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{outdated\|section}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Out of date|section|date=November 2010}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What in the world does that have to do with anything at all? The issue is not how to configure AWB, it's about running bot jobs under your main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOU said I was running SB's fixes. The above ruleset is completely different, and if you hadn't posted would have gone in the bit bucket by now. I am curious whether you just think its fun to try and find or make up rules that I am braking, or if you actually believe you are helping the project by posting these messages. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The issue is not how you are doing it. The edits I linked have one effect: to date a maintenance template. That is exactly what SmackBot is approved to do. Running that task under your main account isn't appropriate even if you do it a different way, or with different code. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you maintain that because I run SmackBot i am forbidden from using AWB's general fixes, while any other AWB user is permitted to do so? Rich Farmbrough, 03:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It is obvious from your edit history that you went through a list of transclusions of Template:criticism-section today to date them and bypass the redirect. Yes, it is inappropriate for you to do that under your main account because it is SmackBot's job. You were aware that you were only dating these templates, and often making no other changes, because you reviewed every one of the edits manually. So it was apparent that you were duplicating SmackBot manualy. It would also be inappropriate for other users to do that, AWB or not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bots are under a special approval regime because they generally run unsupervised most of the time, but I don't see anything 'mutually exclusive' here in the tasks themselves. As Rich said above, it's like Rich isn't allowed to do a task just because Smackbot is authorised to do it... Shome mishtake --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the exclusivity is the point. Bot operators are not allowed to run their bots' jobs under the operators' main accounts. Separating the edits is the fundamental point of the bot accounts. Beyond approval, it means that the edits can be marked as bot edits (so they don't clog watchlists) and that it is clear to other editors that the edit was by a bot.

Bot edits are marked as bot edits because they are bot edits. Making human edits to project space from a bot account is frowned upon for these very reasons - they don't show up on watchlists. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The deeper issue here is that Rich has a pattern of running SmackBot jobs under his main account. Given that he is under an editing restriction and under close scrutiny, it makes sense to be more diligent about following best practices, not less. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason in principal that I cannot manually run rulesets that are (or are not) designed to do approved jobs. Indeed I frequently test and develop rules this way, for the task on American CDPs approximately 10% of the task was completed in the development phase. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(←) Yes, there is a reason not to run approved jobs from your main account - because it's a violation of our policies for bot operators. The fact that you might routinely run bot tasks from your main account is not a justification, it's the same problem I'm pointing out. The longer you continue to do these things, the more you follow in the footsteps of other bot operators who were eventually banned from running bots at all (e.g. Betacommand). — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go back to basics here:

WP:AWB Rules #2: "Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.". From this I conclude that you should not do large volumes of AWB edits, as you have been doing recently, using your main account. You can create another bot account just for AWB.
If you want to duplicate Smackbot tasks using AWB, for testing purposes or not, that's fine: but you shouldn't then make the same mistakes in terms of violating your edit restrictions especially as each AWB edit is supposed to be manually reviewed before saving (AWB rule #1).
I refer you to the letter of the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions placed on you. Cosmetic changes are not permitted unless they are stock AWB or have demonstrable community approval. Yet you seem to think that such cosmetic changes of the type you know well don't have approval are permitted if combined with stock changes (eg here, combining template redirect replacement with hypen->em-dash). This not the case.

It's about time you figured this out, given your experience. My patience in terms of you not respecting your edit restrictions is starting to run a bit low. I've given you plenty of leeway to fix the issues, and it's about time you sorted things out so that you don't repeatedly breach them. Sort it out, or I'm going to seriously think about blocking you for violating the restrictions, something I had not seriously thought I'd have to contemplate. Rd232 ^talk 08:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Stock AWB changes. Rich Farmbrough, 08:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Replacing {{start box}} with {{s-start}} [19] is a "stock change" in AWB? I rather doubt it, and if it's true, I certainly want to know more about it. Discussion, whose decision, etc. PS If you missed the template replacement because it was further down the diff than the presumably stock format changes, that would be a neat illustration of one reason given for the edit restriction, wouldn't it? Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that last point, found it in the AWB redirect list. Rd232 ^talk 18:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsatisfactory explanation

As a reminder, the edit restriction excludes "changes that are built-in to stock AWB". I've just tried to replicate your edit [20] using AWB, and was unable to. Now I'm not too hot on AWB, so if I've missed something please do explain, but it looks to me like this edit is only possible by programming AWB's find-and-replace function with the desired change. This clearly does not qualify as a change "built-in", any more than MediaWiki is "built-in" to PHP. Please clarify how you made the edit. Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, AWB does automatically replace {{Commonscat}} with {{Commons category}} (enable genfixes, disable skip on only genfixes). However, the edit was still in violation of the editing restriction, as you noted. In addition, if Rich is manually reviewing these edits, it not difficult for him to skip change like this, or to remove the capitalisation/whitespace changes and keep the bulk of an edit. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you absolutely sure? I just tried again and couldn't make it happen. Genfixes enabled, no skip options ticked. What about this, discussed above? Rd232 ^talk 14:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, make sure you have version 5.1.0.0, with the same version of WikiFunctions, and try on the Achilles page. Also, on the Nicholas Soames edit, {{Start box}} and {{End box}} are indeed replaced with {{S-start}} and {{S-end}} by AWB. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have version 5.1.0.0 (on Windows XP); I've no idea where WikiFunctions fits in or how to check version of that. What part of AWB does template redirects and who decides them? Rd232 ^talk 15:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. Fram (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That was created in mid-September - what process is there for adding or removing redirects to this list?? I note it says on that page "You are reminded that making page edits solely for the purpose of bypassing template redirects may be considered "trivial editing", and therefore contravene the AWB rules of use. Normally you should not make page edits just to bypass redirects unless there is an agreed need to do it." Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling here to understand AWB's behaviour. Making a list from {{Commonscat}}, I've got it to replace that template redirect, and to skip if "minor genfixes" is ticked. But then it still does this [21] - apparently removing a couple of spaces makes it fine? But it has no visible effect on the output! How is that not a "minor" genfix? Anyway, ticking "skip if genfix" means it only does the replacement in combination with non-trivial changes, eg here. Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try ticking "skip if only whitespace" too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's not entirely clear to me why that option exists (as opposed to being baked in as compulsory). At least it should be ticked by default. Rd232 ^talk 18:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask Rich? Hi Rich. If you are reading this, can you explain what you did, and how to reproduce that? That would be very good, and confirming suggested professionality. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained white-space can be a critical change, for example {{Citation needed|date=July2010}} fails, whereas {{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} is epic. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Whitespace affecting a template parameter like that is very different from bits of trailing whitespace having no visible effect on the output. AWB should be able to distinguish the two - and if it can't, then the AWB user can. Rd232 ^talk 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, exactly. Rich Farmbrough, 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

That's why it's not hard-wired. Rich Farmbrough, 22:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And trailing white-space can affect the output. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't say it couldn't, though very often it won't - and where it doesn't, it's an edit that neither should be made on its own, nor justifies making any other edits that don't affect output. Rd232 ^talk 22:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec/2) Apart from Rd232's reaction here, Rich, you did not answer my Q. It was "what" did you do, and "how". Your reaction is a suggestion of "why". QE not D. -DePiep (talk)

That's because I'm replying to Rd232 not you. Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You haven't actually replied to the issue of why you made that edit. Nor have you replied substantively to the comments I made below. Yes, some issues about AWB behaviour have been clarified, but not your decision-making. Rd232 ^talk 22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232 14:12. (first post in this sub-thread): "Please clarify how you made the edit."
Rd232, 22:38. "You haven't actually replied to the issue of why you made that edit." -- so no how, why (is your reply to Rd232?). -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification from AWB's side: Skip if only whitespace is changed — Skips page if only tabs/spaces/newlines have changed (this ~~doesn't~~ include spacing changed by Find & Replace). -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DaPiep, kindly go and do something useful. Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, you mean to say reading your talkpage carefully is not useful? Then why read at all? -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you stopped both reading it and writing to it. Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Nah Rich! Why talk like that? After all that I have done for you! Just reading you, and pointing out contradictions and so. I really think someone should take care of you somehow, somewhere. Somehow. OK, maybe not me this thread anymore. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

In view of the minor nature of the block evasion mentioned above [22] (one laconic comment to a Wikipedia Signpost talk page), I'm not going to extend the block. Instead, I will take it into account if another block is necessary for not complying with the edit restrictions, so that it will be 72 hours instead of 48. Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that bot operators are allowed to operate their bots when their main account is blocked either, so probably best in the future to stop using FemtoBot while this account is blocked as well (similarly, if Smackbot would not have been blocked now, you would still not have been allowed to run it while your main account is blocked). Fram (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so who would this help? Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

When you make an error while running your bot, you would be unable to revert or correct it with your main account while being blocked. Fram (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal I could be unblocked to deal with the problem. Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for this perfect explanation of why you shouldn't run your bots while being blocked... Fram (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March NNN

Hi Rich. Can you please apply special scrutiny when delinking "March NNN", as you did here. Most instances of "March NNN" are likely to be racing car designations, not date fragments. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I skipped a lot of those, but I'll try to avoid any more. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now skip all of these, seems pragmatically sound. Rich Farmbrough, 09:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note this and march 1968 on dating page... Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

DoneRich Farmbrough, 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks...

...for a very welcome invitation. Do let me know how I can contribute, or...prevent de-tributing. --Bsherr (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 36

Template: Trial complete.. *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 22:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 10:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 16:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 18:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 09:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 09:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waitwaitwait...

...you have a wikiproject for bacon?

Isn't that a bit...obsessive? HalfShadow 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, or should I say ...Ham... It's a small WikiProject. Barely a few rashers really. See the article in the WP:Signpost. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked 24 hours

So after the discussion above you not only don't bother to reply, but continue to use AWB on your main account, and to do unvarnished template redirect replacements using AWB, which is an edit you know full well is in violation of your edit restrictions, and an edit which you should be manually reviewing. [23] Sorry, but enough is enough. If I have to block you for you to get the message that these edit restrictions are more than mere blather, so be it. At least it'll give you time to sort out your Smackbot and AWB programming so that the restrictions are respected. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a not quite entirely unrelated note, Femtobot just threw a wobbly and replaced your entire talk page with its update [24]. Rd232 ^talk 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a wise move. </humour> Rich Farmbrough, 08:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Stock change. And there is continuous improvement, which has proved very successful. The step-change required has, on the contrary caused many problems, which is the usual result of Tampering. Rich Farmbrough, 08:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Stock change, yes, but your editing restriction states "(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)". My emphasis: what "substantive edit" is being done in that edit? You did the same e.g. here. Apart from that; this is replacing an error (point between refs) with another error (ending sentence with ",."). Fram (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fram, nice to see you, did you bring me a file in a cake? Rich Farmbrough, 08:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Are you evading your block or is someone trying to give that impression? [25] Fram (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

he also did something unconstructive to his own talkpage, i thought it was an IP vandalising so I reverted--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no bother, I just got logged out. Rich Farmbrough, 10:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well, when your blocked you don't log out and continue editting, thats evading your ban, you went as an IP and editted a talk page, you mustn't do that wait untl your block is over or appeal for an unblock--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the enlightenment. Rich Farmbrough, 10:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Seriously, Rich? Are you saying that you didn't realize that? —David Levy 10:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just trying to be polite. Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, so you intentionally evaded the block. —David Levy 10:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er no, I made an edit I shouldn't have. Rich Farmbrough, 11:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What distinction are you drawing? —David Levy 11:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentionally. Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please elaborate. Did you somehow forget that your account was blocked? —David Levy 11:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ever moved from a manual to an automatic or vice versa? It's exactly like that, I've hit edit maybe a dozen times this morning. It's not exactly "forgetting", it's just automatic behaviour. Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'll take your word for it, Rich. Note that it would have been helpful if you'd immediately provided such an explanation instead of your 10:22 and 10:29 responses. —David Levy 13:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Rich, have you modified your AWB settings to prevent changes which only change casing, only change white space, (I believe this is as simply as checking two check boxes on the form - if those don't work, as I've said before I'm happy to lend any coding assistance that I can, or you could ask the AWB developers) or only change a template to a redirect? (in the case of template redirects, except those which are built into AWB and other substantive changes are being made at the same time). This is intended as a direct question, and I would appreciate a direct response. </ec> So why were you signed out at the time? That doesn't seem like "automatic" behaviour to me. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, have you modified your AWB settings

I have a couple of hundred AMB settings files, I certainly have not modified all or even most of them. Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

to prevent changes which only change casing, only change white space, (I believe this is as simply as checking two check boxes on the form - if those don't work, as I've said before I'm happy to lend any coding assistance that I can, or you could ask the AWB developers)

Yes by and large, I use those check boxes, sometime it's not appropriate "May1990" => "May 1990" for example.Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

or only change a template to a redirect? (in the case of template redirects, except those which are built into AWB and other substantive changes are being made at the same time).

Done for SmackBot some time ago. Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I appreciate that it's difficult to change your settings, having so many, and this is a task which will take time. Also, thanks for modifying SmackBot to prevent the bypassing of template redirects. However, as I see it, what you need to do is pay more attention to your own (apparently semi-automated) edits when using AWB, and remove any rules which violate the restriction before making them (but after seeing them pop-up in AWB's proposed edit). If you're reading the edit you're making properly, it should be no more difficult then saving to skip edits such as the ones mentioned above on your talk page (those which only make cosmetic changes). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I have years of looking at diffs for errors, rather than ensuring a specific change is made. Not saying this is an excuse, it's just how the human mind works. Anyway I don't know I'll be bothering with AWB much more. Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If you set it up right, AWB should skip edits for you that you shouldn't save. But maybe it's better for careful Smackbot programming to handle this anyway. Rd232 ^talk 11:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're pretty much synonymous, but we are talking about manual (AWB) edits here anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Handling parser limitations

18-Nov-2010: Well, I am getting hints, from everyone, about the bad news with the limited parser functions, but "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade" or "parser-ade" (parser-aid). Due to concerns about moving templates to other wikis, we need to assume the worst-case, where many people will have dinky, limited versions of MediaWiki. We can quickly write work-around templates, because we finally know the performance limits, of how the 40-nest restriction is fatal (rather than some murky "Don't worry about performance"). The use of too many nested if-elses will cause a template to die, some day soon, when combined with other complex templates. For example, the current {{Str_len}} template (which counts length by checking 100s, 10s and ones) is using enough if-elses to devour 9-nest levels of the 40-nest limit. I am creating a {{Strlen_small}}, by using older, simpler algorithms, which will only use 3-nest levels (rather than 9). I created one of the character templates to handle all the accented characters in foreign languages. Then, we can consider which infoboxes (and such) need to use optimized utility templates to avoid the 40-nest limit. Also, by listing template variations (under each "See also"), then casual users will be alerted that they might need to use a streamlined, more efficient version of a utility template. Meanwhile, if people keep discussing the primitive limits of MediaWiki, then eventually, the concerns might reach a "critical mass" where better parser-function sets become standard. I suspect that some people wanted to show each string-function "what-links-here" as proof that "80,000 articles" will use such functions if available. So, progress can be made, on many different fronts, to provide interim solutions, while also educating people about better parser-function sets in the next releases. The important strategy is to have multiple paths of success, like usernames on different wikis, so that progress can be made in a wide range of areas, when thwarted along some paths. I can take each better template to become a similar one on German Wikipedia, as a Vorlage:Strlen_klein, so that other-language Wikipedias can propagate those templates based on their knowledge of German WP. There are many different avenues to make improvements with these issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I re-opened the bug. Rich Farmbrough, 08:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

some one is hungry for bacon today

Hello, i just noticed you editted loads of bacon related articles today, which was amusing, are you trying to tell us something or are you just erm hungry XD! any ways happy editting--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes bacony day. Off to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stamford now. Rich Farmbrough, 11:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A WikiProject for a town of 20,000? Really? Why not just join Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire? Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maybe because they don't have bacon? :P --Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no "Stamford pie", "Stamford pudding", "Stamford bacon" but there should be! Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It had Lincolnshire as a parent project. Stamford is culturally closer to Rutland and North-East Northhants, historically closer to Cambridgeshire, feudally to various places including Durham, economically a near suburb of Peterborough and geographically closer the at least four other county towns than to its own. It was the home of, or important to, many historical figures. It has a James Challis like history of almost being one of the ancient university towns, being the seat of parliament, but not of government, almost being a major railway junction and works, and so forth. It has an outstanding wealth of vernacular stone buildings, was the site of an Eleanor Cross, is the burial place of a number of notables, has one of the last assisted places schemes in the country, the oldest newspaper and is on the doorstep of the Burleigh Estate with all that entails in terms of royal history. With proper research there is scope for several hundred significant articles within the purview of the project. Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well, OK. I ask because I see a lot of inactive wikiprojects on small subjects. But if you think it'll be more useful than working within an existing project (maybe higher level than Lincolnshire if that doesn't suit), fine. Rd232 ^talk 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geographic location

Please revert your last edit to {{Geographic location}}. The addition of {{PAGENAME}} causes the geobox to be preceded with the pagename, which is totally pointless (in most cases it's the same as the centre label anyway) and disruptive to formatting. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 14:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 19:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37

Template: Trial complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 00:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

OK, let's try and wrap up some recommendations:

Don't use AWB on your main account. Use a different one, perhaps specifically for AWB. cf AWB rule 2.
Every AWB edit is supposed to be manually reviewed (AWB rule 1). Don't forget that.
AWB "stock changes" are permitted by the edit restrictions, including template redirects listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. But as that page itself notes, and as the edit restrictions emphasise, even those stock changes should not be made on their own, without any substantive changes to the page. AWB has settings to ensure that this doesn't happen, as discussed above - so use them. But in addition, see point 2.

On a related issue, it's not clear to me how redirects get into the AWB list. There is an unsatisfactory discussion here. Anyone? PS It would be good to see Smackbot up and running again, if you can sort out the coding to ensure it behaves in a manner consistent with the editing restriction. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 1: any such account should be clearly linked from (and to) your user page. You fairly recently used an account for a number of DNB edits after similar complaints, but as far as I can tell, this account was never clearly linked to your main account. To avoid that people would conclude that you use an alternate account to circumvent your editing restrictions, a clear connection between the two accounts must be available. Fram (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't need saying. Rd232 ^talk 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sofixt Fram. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It is your responsibility to manage alternate accounts in accordance with policy, no-one else's. Rd232 ^talk 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK compare the effort of typing the above with typing, on the user page, "This is an alternative account of Rich Farmbrough for AWB edits". Fram would rather complain here than fix the problem. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT much? I put my comment in bold. Read it again. Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure shouting always helps. If it's my responsibility why does Fram take it upon themselves? Rich Farmbrough, 09:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I wasn't shouting, it's just a shortcut, which is usually in caps. You shouldn't need reminding, but if you do, don't blame the messenger. Rd232 ^talk 11:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the excessive use of bolding. There's not an issue, that account has only edited my userspace. The name makes it clear it's an alternate account. It was busybodies screaming their heads of that caused me to create it in the first place. Rich Farmbrough, 11:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Bolding is not shouting, it's emphasis - and apparently even that degree of emphasis didn't get through to you! Please see the relevant policy at Wikipedia:SOCK#Alternative_account_notification, and please stop being dismissive of others ("busybodies" indeed!). Accounts should be linked, and name alone is not enough. Rd232 ^talk 13:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E pur si muove... Rich Farmbrough, 14:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ah yes, what a clever and appropriate response. Being reminded of Wikipedia alternate account policy is totally the same thing as being tortured to declare that the Sun goes round the Earth, but then dissenting sotto voce. Martyr complex much? Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point entirely. Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Fine - so what was it? Why so cryptic? Rd232 ^talk 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That they are busybodies, whether you call them that or not. Rich Farmbrough, 14:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Additional: if you have any issues when you start editing with AWB or programming Smackbot, then ask me or the community. Describe what you want to do, or do a single edit for demonstration purposes, and ask. Don't go off doing thousands of edits, mixing in ones which are near the border of the editing restrictions. Rd232 ^talk 22:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, please don't defend my stalkers. Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm starting to have issues with your attitude. You haven't engaged with this issue anything like as much as you could have done, and your last couple of remarks quite unhelpful - combined with a bit of needless block evasion. My response to your entirely inappropriate remark to Fram almost involved a wet fish; and since she's been involved with this issue for some time, a dismissive "stalker" is unhelpful. Nor was I defending her. Please, take a step back and consider that we all have the same objective, which is getting you back to making lots of improvements to Wikipedia - minus edits that don't have consensus, per your edit restrictions and AWB rules. Rd232 ^talk 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent hours explaining stuff to Fram. It's time wasted as far as I can see. The purpose seems to be to come here and "point out my mistakes and help me improve". Very worthy no doubt, but after 9 weeks it's getting tiring - especially with people who have a limited command of English and less of systems. I am not here for the amusement of others, however that manifests itself. Those that have constructive criticism, requests for help, queries, genuine intelligent advice or just want to chat - broadly about the project, are welcome here. Any others can kindly go elsewhere for their fun. I am very patient especially with those who mean to be helpful, but frankly it is wearing a bit thin. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, blaming others for the issues you're not discussing enough with me is wearing a bit thin. Please respond to my conclusions above. Rd232 ^talk 09:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ragsdale

Hi Rich Farmbrough. You worked on Jeff Ragsdale's page at one time. Ragsdale is currently being harassed by IP number 71.190.77.101. This person, whom we have identified through correct legal means, is a fellow actor and he started his attack on Ragsdale by submitting a fake resume regarding Ragsdale on craigslist. Then said person started a commentary regarding Jeff Ragsdale's Wikipedia "notability". This whole issue has now snowballed into a "notability" issue on Wikipedia because of IP number 71.190.77.101's false claims regarding Ragsdale. My question to you is can you leave a message on Theda's page about your sentiments regarding Ragsdale's notability? Theda has since reinserted the notability tag on Ragsdale's Wikipedia page. Ragsdale is clearly a notable person. One would just have to look at the rich sources, and all of his television and film credits, as well as his international activism. Or could you possibly point me in other directions? Richard Peterson 11-20-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardPeterson44 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's a charm?

Any reason why you have yet again restarted your faulty script to create redirects from the capitalized words on articles that don't match the article title? You have for the third time created the redirect Lucius Caelius to Lactantius. You also created the redirect from Designations to Star designation, which is only one of the many possible targets (I changed it to a redirect to Designation instead). The fact that this kind of redirect creation is problematic has been shown to you before, so I wonder why you started it again. And wheren't you just blocked for making this kind of edits? It's not as if it is a one-off error, there is also this one... Fram (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work so I was working in it. Yes I am aware, thank you for redirecting that I was going to create a dab page. Like I said with the best will in the world there's going to be a few. I notice you are taking over SmackBot's task. Fun for you. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Someone has to do it I guess since the bot isn't allowed to run for more than a couple hours at a time. That should help at least a dozen editors keep their edit counts up so a couple of insignificant edits can be saved. --Kumioko (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can test things without saving them, you know. And if you want to continue this, it may be smarter to include less violations of your editing restrictions. Fram (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Defaultsort" differing trivially from article title

What is the intention of edits like this one? It does nothing to affect the article's position in the category listing for either of the categories it is in. Gurch (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does:

Legal age
Legal death
Legal district
Legal doublet
Legal hold
Legal liability
Legal nullity
Legal opinion
Legal Project Management
Legal recourse
Legal terrorism
Legal transplant

would be

Legal age
Legal death
Legal district
Legal doublet
Legal liability
Legal nullity
Legal opinion
Legal Project Management
Legal recourse
Legal terrorism
Legal transplant
Legal hold

regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

...only because you and other bots have been inserting pointless capitalized defaultsorts on the other articles. If none of them had one, they would sort correctly. Gurch (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the above example they would sort:

Legal Project Management
Legal age
Legal death
Legal district
Legal doublet
Legal hold
Legal liability
Legal nullity
Legal opinion
Legal recourse
Legal terrorism
Legal transplant

Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Can't that be fixed by putting {{DEFAULTSORT:Legal project management}} on Legal Project Management, though? That only adds one useless defaultsort instead of 11 of them. Gurch (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and indeed that is an excellent solution, and one I would favour ab initio (it is simpler - although not necessarily using less DEFAULTSORTs across the whole). Problem is almost all the people articles already have a sort that uses extreme title case. There is a Bugzilla request that would allow us to make the wiki case-insensitive, but it is years old - that would be the ideal "next step", solving almost all category sorting problems. Rich Farmbrough, 14:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Can't you use title case for biographies and lower case for everything else? Biographies are easily machine-identifiable because they either have Category:Living people or a death-related category. Gurch (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if we had only categories that contained people or non-people. (Of course there are also fictional people, and the likes of Nicolas Bourbaki - and articles about eponymous bands which are also about the person.) Rich Farmbrough, 14:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Considering that most people defaultsorts have a "," after the first word (Locke, John), they sort different from every non-person "Locke" article anyway, so the argument that uppercase defaultsorts are needed because biographies have them is not very convincing. Fram (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort is very useful and better keep it as we do it till now. A good idea would be a bot to do it in all pages in fact. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are BRFA's to deal with the problem areas - although I reiterate a good solution to the Bugzilla item that would allow case-insensitive sorting would make almost all of this go away overnight. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Yes I'm aware of that, and it shows that things weren't completely thought through when the scheme for people was established. Enough people don't sort with a comma, thousands at least - and we have also hundreds of thousands of articles that would need a DEFAULTSORT under a ucfirst regime that don't now. However if you can get consensus to change to ucfirst, I'm all for it, as it would be an improvement longer term. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Since all biographical defaultsorts have a comma at the end of the name (if the title has multiple words, and if it doesn't it doesn't need one) they automatically come after any other multi-word title beginning with the subject's surname, because "," comes after " ". Changing the category sorting to be case-insensitive wouldn't change that. So even in a category that mixes people and non-people, I don't see the value in insisting on title-case defaultsorts for every page. The person's entry would appear in the category below any titles that had the subject's surname as a first name, but above any titles that started with some substring of the subject's surname. No matter what case was used for the defaultsorts in non-biographical articles, this wouldn't change. The only reason it would change is if there was a non-biographical title (or defaultsort for a non-biographical article) that used "foo, bar" syntax *and* didn't capitalize "bar". I'm not aware any such pages even exist. This seems like an excuse to make meaningless edits to hundreds of thousands of articles for no reason. Gurch (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{DEFAULTSORT:Alfred The Great} has no comma. There are thousands like that, probably tens of thousands (yes mo<style>span.GerbrantEditRegexReplaceHit{font-weight:bold;background:lightsteelblue}span.GerbrantEditRegexReplaceHitOff{font-weight:bold;background:mistyrose}span.GerbrantEditRegexReplaceMaskFailed{font-weight:normal;color:red}</style>re than 10,000 I can give rough figures later^{[def 1]}), once we include certain Muslim names (which have up to 5 saliant parts, not necessarily including a family name) and names from the Far East. Moreover there are other places where the personal name takes capitals apart form after spaces, namely after ' and - . Even if the name has a "bar, foo" defaultsort id may be that bar = "Baz Quok". As form non-bio articles with a "'" in their sort order, there are probably more than 30,000 of them - the American place names for starters. Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

^ C. 30,000 members of categories with "birth" "death" or "living" in the name have a DEFAULTSORT with no comma, although many of these should have a DEFAULTSORT with a comma by the current methodolgy

"This seems like an excuse to make meaningless edits to hundreds of thousands of articles for no reason. " If you believe that, then please help prevent these edits by going and voting for the T2164 - although it already has the highest vote of any open bug. Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The developers don't pay any attention to bug votes, it's just a feature of Bugzilla that was never turned off.

Bug 164 asks for more than just case insensitivity of category sort keys. It asks for the ability to set arbitrary, locale-sensitive, sort orders. This requires, as the bug explains, both a database schema change and changes to the underlying database engine (MySQL) to support such locale-sensitive sorts (since the sorting of category contents is done by the database itself).

All this adding of title-cased sort keys could be done away with much more simply: just make the category sort key case-insensitive. This is easily done with the existing schema and database engine, by transforming all category sort keys to either all uppercase or all lowercase (it doesn't matter) before storing them. That way, no matter what the case of the article title (or the defaultsort, or category sort key if explicitly specified), "A" and "a" would always sort before "B" and "b" which would always sort before "C" and "c" and so forth.

You'd still have the issue of non-English character sets sorting in completely the wrong order (which is what bug 164 wants to fix). But it would get rid of the superfluous defaultsorts. At the same time, you wouldn't lose any functionality -- the only thing you wouldn't be able to do is force a title to sort somewhere else based on case alone, but if you want really want to make something sort before/after everything else despite all alphabetical indication to the contrary you can just put a "!" in the sort key or something. Gurch (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. There are also a massive number of diacritics in article titles. And if applying a toupper or tolower is trivial (toupper or ucfirst(tolower) would be preferred so that the section heads are still capitals) dealing with these is hardly complex.

On the matter of votes, the voting system was changed from numeric to tick-box (or from 0-1000 to 0-1 if you prefer) some years ago so it's not been left on by accident, though maybe it has been ignored more than many of us would like. Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Edit restriction Nov 22

This edit from today [26] is a violation of your editing restriction.

Never fear I reverted that change, so everyone will be happy. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Also, you appear to be inappropriately running SmackBot's "add references section" job on AWB under your main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had this conversation before. Maybe you forgot RS232 confirmed this would not be a problem. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- No, I don't remember that. Actually, now that I realize that SmackBot is blocked, it's even more clear that it's inappropriate – it appears you are running SmackBot jobs on your main account to evade the block on the bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense and piffle. On so many levels. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    - As I was saying the pattern here resembles more and more that of other bot operators who were eventually banned from editing bots. My hope if to bring you back onto community best practices before that happens. But all I can do it point out the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [27] is also quite odd. You added a reflist tag, but there are no footnotes. Your edit summary claimed to be moving a portal tag, but you didn't. If you're manually checking these, make sure the edit summary matches the actual edit. Otherwise, it has the appearance that you didn't actually check the edit at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked SmackBot, presuming that you now understand what needs to be done to respect the edit restrictions. Please edit with appropriate caution in terms of testing and reviewing etc. Rd232 ^talk 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ty. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination of Lists of wind turbines in Denmark for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Lists of wind turbines in Denmark, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of wind turbines in Denmark until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of wind turbines in Denmark (1990-1999)‎

The article List of wind turbines in Denmark (1990-1999)‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Handschuh-^{talk to me} 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of wind turbines in Denmark (2000-2009)

The article List of wind turbines in Denmark (2000-2009) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of ‎List of wind turbines in Denmark (1978-1989)

The article ‎List of wind turbines in Denmark (1978-1989) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Handschuh-^{talk to me} 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of wind turbines in Denmark (2010-2019)‎

The article List of wind turbines in Denmark (2010-2019)‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Handschuh-^{talk to me} 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested all of these prods. For this particular list, which is empty, I have proposed it be merged back to the main list page. LadyofShalott 18:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Turkey Bacon

I don't think your addition of a Bacon Portal tag on this page is correct. The first line of the Bacon Portal reads Bacon is a cured meat prepared from a pig and, obviously, Turkey Bacon doesn't meet that criteria. It's also an inferior product to 'real' bacon and I think the addition of your Portal imbues it with undeserved kudos Obscurasky (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe you are correct. We should create a subsidiary inferior portal called the "Ersatz bacon" portal, maybe. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You seem to agree with me, so I've now removed the tag. Obscurasky (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm fine with giving it the chop, I had no steak in it remaining. Rich Farmbrough, 09:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot

Len Garrison achievements are recognised as he was made one of the 100 Great Black Britons Igbo (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Lagosman[reply]

I declare you one of the 100 Great Wikipedians. Your Wikipedianess has been acknowledged by .. me. That's what the person who originally put the tag in was asking. If someone gets an Oscer their "Greatness" has been acknowledged by "the Academy" (or they give great party bags), if someone it knighted they have been acknowledged by HRH in theory, by the government of the day in practice etc. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Persondata

Can you please use capital letters when adding persondata? I know it doesn't make any difference but it's better to have everything in the same style. I suggest you use the built-in AWB feature instead of using a modified one. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and the normal style for en:wp is lowercase for tempalte paramters! Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Bacon vodka

I have twice reverted a faulty edit of yours to this article. Please can you check your code and, if en edit is reverted, do not make the same edit again? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a duplicate ref. I removed it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

TagUpdater in AWB

Two updates they might be interesting for you:

TagUpdater: first word to first character uppercase in date field rev 7417
TagUpdater: removes day in International date in |date= rev 7419

-- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joel P. Wyler

Hi Rich, I don't think this edit was useful - the whole article content had previously been removed and replaced by the {{copyviocore}} template which says, amongst other things, "Do not edit this page until an administrator or an OTRS agent has resolved this issue.". As it was, the page turned up in the Category:Stubs for stub-sorting, though I had to look at a past version of the page to sort it... and then realised how daft it all was and reverted your changes instead! So whether by hand or by bot, perhaps you could avoid adding tags to articles in this state? Thanks. PamD (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm well by bot should be safe, I changed the insertion method of copyvio to include a {{nobots}} template some time ago. But the BLP_prod should have been removed. Rich Farmbrough, 10:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What is the point...

...of edits like this? LadyofShalott 01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a layout issue. The portal tag is floated right, therefore should be before the bulleted list. Rich Farmbrough, 10:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The old version looked ugly, like this. It might seem from the wikitext that it shouldn't make any layout difference, but it does. Rd232 ^talk 10:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Point taken. LadyofShalott 20:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mário João

Hello! Do you know the full name of this Portuguese football player? Many sources affirm Mário Rodrigues João, while other ones state only Mário João. If you know something more, plese, write me here. --VAN ZANT (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no, I would have thought that if reliable sources give a middle name it is likely to be correct. Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Translate Bot

I think the name says it all, but what does Translate Bot do? And the article list? Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In due course it will <ahem> translate between the various language projects, flawlessly. <ahem> The article list is just something to start on. I expect the first successful translation to take several months after I start working on it, and I don't necessarily expect the second one to be much faster. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot

Error introduced at this edit. - Station1 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Cleaning up your own Smackbot edits

When you are cleaning up the Smackbot errors of inserting Currentmonth into articles, perhaps it is easier if you at the same time also clean up the CurrentDay that Smackbot inserted in the same edits at the same position? [28],[29], ... Fram (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's currentmonthno, that task is long complete, currentday is a mediawiki bug,but it's sorted for recent edits (both of them). Rich Farmbrough, 14:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

CFD notice

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 27; your Category:Main page is up for merging. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error introduced by SmackBot

SmackBot recently made a load of fixes to the article Borders of the oceans - diff here [30]. Whilst most things it did were valid, one change introduced an error - the third change shown in the diff.
The article contains some quotes with explanatory text given in square brackets. One of these square bracketed sections contains a wikilink at the end. Therefore in the code it ends with three ]'s. SmackBot removed one of these brackets, presumably because three brackets usually indicate an error. (Interestingly, other three-bracket groups in the article weren't amended by SmackBot.)
Is this something that can be amended in the Bot's code, or do you think that it will be such a rare occurrence that it's not worth fixing? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well the first one is "nowiki-ed" so it's hard to say whether this is something that should change - its core AWB "General Fixes". I would be inclined to change the article in this case - which I have fdone, no-wiki-ing the closing "]". Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I guess it is an AWB error but the correct syntax in the text would be to have both brackets in nowiki. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the correct thing would be for the software to interpret [[[]]] "correctly" - i.e. as a bracketed wikilink.. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Recent changes list

Would you put WP:MED on the list for the recent changes page? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Recent_changes

Rich Farmbrough, 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot smackdown

FYI, I've added SmackBot and Yobot's current edit war at Human hair growth to WP:LAME#Bot vs bot. —Angr (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop the automated redirect creation

Apart from the outright errors, noted a number of times before, and now again shown with the Centerville/Centreville redirect which I speedy deleted as a R2 implausibe redirect, you also create a fair number of redirects which should be disambiguations instead. looking only at the last ten Township redirects you created, Woodward to Swatara, four of them should not have been a redirect but instead a disambiguation: Woodbury Township, Windham Township, Wilmington Township and Todd Township. Fram (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? Those are new redirects to existing disambiguation pages. You mean the existing page should be moved to the new redirect page? Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, e.g. Woodbuy Township now is a redirect to Woodbury Township, Pennsylvania, but there is also Woodbury Township, Cumberland County, Illinois. Windham Township is a redirect to Windham Township, Pennsylvania, even though we also have Windham Township, Ontario and Windham Township, Portage County, Ohio (the latter has more inhabitants than the two Pennsylvania ones combined). These Township redirects should be proper disambiguations between all townships with the same name, not redirects to the one page that happens to have X Township as a bolded term in the lead. Fram (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes. Rd232 ^talk 12:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbury Township fixed. Will have a go at the others soon, taking the line of point 1 below. Is there a list of similar problems? Mind you, USA placenames are pretty uninteresting so I'm not saying I'll fix a lot of them! PamD (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fram (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Windham Township. PamD (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Todd and Wilmington. I wish people who create pages would have the wit to create appropriate dabs or redirects when they start off, so we wouldn't be having to mop up after them! PamD (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True - and true in an interesting way. 3 of these 4 cases were created at 21.55 on 28 October 2002, the other a few minutes earlier. So the problem here originates with a mass creation which didn't match the current practice (it was a long time ago...) that they should have been created at the page Rich recently created, not with the ", Pennsylvania" suffix. Rd232 ^talk 10:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also converted five of them into disambiguations, there are still plenty left to do though... Fram (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These need to be promoted to DAB pages, then Fram. I was aware that some of them probably would, a redirect is still better than no page at all. ( I often think of a redirect as equivalent to a DAB page with one entry./) Perhaps you would like to look at doing that? If you follow my talk page as closely as you seem you will know it is something on my mind. Rich Farmbrough, 14:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No, a redirect is not better than nothing at all, it promotes for entirely illogical reasons one target over the other ones, where no redirect at all would lead to the search page where every possible target should be listed. I am not going to check and clean up the hundreds of redirects you create. You create a mess, you are responsible for cleaning it up, and you are even more responsible for not continuing the same behaviour and type of edits after the problems have been pointed out to you repeatedly. (And with "cleaning up" things, I don't mean the kind of edit you have done here with the intent of removing it from your automated script list...). There are way too many of those, like Cass Township, which now links to two townships in Pennsylvania, and ignores the 4 in Iowa, 8 in Indiana, 3 in Ohio and 1 in Illinois. Fram (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that (a) for these cases a redirect is certainly not better than nothing (b) that redirects of this type should not be created automatically. Each one needs checking to see if a dab page is needed. Finally, doesn't mass creation need a BRFA? Was there one here? Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would not have done this particular change I think its good to have these redirects, but the other similar redirects you mention appearing in the search need to be added to the DAB pages. Perhaps that is something that Rich can or has planned to do. Yes you can search for something but your comment assumes that result is in the first 20 occurrences and often times I find what I need on page 12 or something, not page one. We are talking about making things easier for users, not us necessarily so having all the variations of X on one page with all the others makes it easier than scrolling though 20+ pages of search results. Also, I have heard both of you mention multiple times on this very page that redirects are good and there is no need to change them or worry about them but now all of a sudden redirects are bad because he has created a few? Seems kinda like we are sliding the rules to meet our needs at the moment to me. Also, no, there is no need for BRFA for creation, depending on the thing being created. Using AWB I have "created" about 300 talk pages in the last month for US related articles that had blank talk pages and didn't have any banners. I understand that Rich is on the skyline for doing some unnecessary changes but is the intention to scrutinize every edit he makes, every day that he makes one. Surely there are better things to do than to worry about 1 user performing some insignificant edits. If the edit is insignificant is continually looking for them also an insignificant contribution. Feel free to look through mine and see if I have made some or if you have suggestions for how I can improve on the edits that I have made. I only made about 140 edits today so far but I am sure if you look through them you'll find 1 or 2 that I missed or need to improve. Cheers! --Kumioko (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RS: You say each one needs checking. Do you think most dabs/redirects are checked like that? You are making unwarranted quality control assumptions that do not fit in with the Wiki-way of doing things. Ones choice with a problem is:

Fix the problem.
Wait for someone else to fix it.
Ask for help.
Moan.

All have their upsides and down-sides - which vary for different people. I find number 4 an unappealing choice,not only for myself bout for others, and tend to to 1 and 2 - I should probably do 3instead of 2. That's how I am. Fram enjoys moaning - maybe "spotting" a dubious redirect makes them feel good and superior I don't know. But I wish they would go and do something else - anything else - it's not an attitude compatible with my character. Dr Bloefeld does a mixture of 1 & 3 that works very well. Similarly Kumikomo, Mag and a whole bunch of others. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A redirect is better, Fram. It takes you to a page and if it's the wrong one you can then create the DAB page, or see the layout for the title if you are a lazy leecher. As usual you presume technical knowledge that you do not posses. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(reply to Kumioko) I don't think you have really understood the problem when you say that "I think its good to have these redirects, but the other similar redirects you mention appearing in the search need to be added to the DAB pages." The DAB pages have to be created instead of the redirects, the redirects don't point to incomplete disambiguations but to incorrect ones (i.e. disambiguations for one state only, instead of general ones). And could you please provide some diffs for rd232 or me sliding the rules? I don't think that the context of such earlier comments, if any, will turn out to be the same as here.

As or scrutinizing someone's edits: if someone has had enough problematic edits to warrant an edit restriction, it is not unusual to check his edits. And if I notice on my watchlist that a page I have already deleted twice as an incorrectly created redirect is created yet again, despite having alerted Rich Farmbrough to this problem, then it is only logical that I check whether this is the only problematic edit or not. The current problem is not with insignificant edits, but with incorrect ones. The earlier problem was indeed with insignificant edits, which light up many watchlists and fill up the recent changes pages for no good reason at all.

Finally, it is not about one or two mistakes, it is about many mistakes, time after time, and the refusal to take them serious or to do something about them, with more energy spent on discussing the messenger than on focusing on the message. Fram (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rich Farmbrough: I have repeatedly tried to fix the problem at the source, i.e. stop the creation of such incorrect redirects (either those that are truly improbable, and get speedy deleted, or those that should be disambiguations instead of redirects). Sadly, the source of the problems ignores this, and prefers discussing me instead of the edits, mixing in some unwarrented personal attacks to boot. I'll continue to mention each and every recurring problem with your automated, semi-automated and script-based edits, it's up to you if you correct the errors (both after you created them, and preventing the further creation of more similar problems) or ignore them, but the consequences of this are your problem as well. Fram (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes about eight weeks ago I found time donate to the project to do some serious clean-up, and made a lot of minor improvements - including a typo fixing task I have now given up on through two months of incessant, obsessive surveillance and criticism, from a small handful of people, that has thankfully now been reduced to 1. I come on WP mainly to use it, at the moment, but there's always the orange bar flashing. However that is easily fixed by logging off when I'm not editing, something I have never felt the need to deliberately before. <shrug> Times change I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Once again, you're blaming others for the evident need for someone to look over your shoulder and check your work (which of course shouldn't be necessary, but if it is, partly due to the complexity and volume of the totality of what you're doing, then at least accept it with good grace). It ain't pretty. Rd232 ^talk 21:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<STATSUS> LOGGED OFF </STATUS>

Since it was questioned by Kumioko, and Rich ignored the issue, see Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Mass_article_creation. There is no specific exception for redirects, but (Kumioko) it applies to articles not talk pages so your task sounds exempt. Rich: I presume "RS" is directed at me (Rd232). First, creation of redirects which may plausibly involve a need for disambiguation should involve checking for that, and anyone creating such redirects on a substantial scale without checking would be asked to do that whether they submitted the edit using AWB or a carrier pigeon. Please stop taking the attitude that whatever you're doing is unimprovable and that any resulting problems should be cleaned up by people who find them. You're experienced enough to know better, and I find it increasingly bizarre that you find making minor course corrections such trouble. Rd232 ^talk 21:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I wouldn't clean them up. Nor that what I'm doing is un-improvable - which would be at odds with your other suggestion. It is simply a matter of attitude - if people state problems clearly and without prejudice they can generally be resolved. If they want to play games that appease their egos they are going to have problems, eventually even with someone as laid back and obliging as I. It's simple psychology, I see Fram's sig and my conditioned response is "oh no here we go again" - that's the polite version. That's why I suggest they go somewhere else and persue other interests. There are millions of editors and nearly 2000 admins - of those there are only maybe 5 who make my heart sink when I see they have commented. And I know two of them would be delighted to know it. The other three I believe mean well. Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Your frustration is evident, not for the first time. I think you underestimate your own contribution to this state affairs: failing to get BRFA for the mass redirect creation is a simple example, since the issue later identified might well have come up there. More generally, if you didn't spread yourself so widely (doing different tasks at once) and did more testing, it might work out better for everyone. Rd232 ^talk 13:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smackbot

Just FYI. Smackbot clean wiped the United States diplomatic cables leak article. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm.. that was right after or right before an edit conflict. TY. Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ah. Edit conflicts cause the bot to overwrite the code entirely? High profile articles like this will always turn out edit conflicts! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear why this is happens. AWB has special checks to avoid writing a blank page, we had previously suspected a bug in the API. Historically SmackBot has hit this problem extremely rarely, and non-reproducibly, the same applies to other AWB users. I can pass the information on to the AWB developers, who will make the necessary investigations. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Converted broken

{{Converted}} was broken after your edit. Can you please fix it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Wingfield

Hi, I had a look at Francis Wingfield for DYK, and it seems to be coming up quite short of the required 1500 chars, especially since 2/3 of the article is a block quote. --Worm 11:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll see what I can find in the Museum and Library. Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

[1] C. 30,000 members of categories with "birth" "death" or "living" in the name have a DEFAULTSORT with no comma, although many of these should have a DEFAULTSORT with a comma by the current methodolgy

[def 1]