Jump to content

User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011 March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Trying to populate newly introduced parameters?

[edit]

[1]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. Biographies is much better than biography because it answer the question "which notability guidelines?" and completes the sentence "notability for...". -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. It depends. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

User:Me-123567-Me‎

[edit]

I appreciate your saying something to him, but I think you left out a couple important issues. One, his blanking of uncited entries was after an AFD already rejected his attempt to delete it for being uncited, and while another AFD was about to close as keep on the same kind of list for the same reasons. So his actions were directly contrary to established AFD consensus, and as J Greb said in the AN/I thread, POINTy and disruptive. Two, he abused a warning template after I reverted his blanking once. I'd like to see these issues addressed more expressly. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename stuff

[edit]

Heya, someone noticed User:Rich Farmbrough/temp19/redir (for some odd reason), and was prob kidding when they said "hey, can someone please rename a few thousand articles?" - however, they were a bit surprised when I said "sure, OK".

I skimmed over it, and I realise they all need a manual sanity-check before any action, but... if you wanted, I can deal w/ all those, on that specific page.

You may well be planning to do it your own way, and that's fine.

Otherwise - if you'd like me to take on that specific task - those renames, then I can. Of course, I would check them all before doing it, and I'd take full responsibility for my yada yada.

The offer is there if you want it; poke on my talk. Best,  Chzz  ►  23:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot

[edit]

Hey SmackBot (Rich Farmbrough.) I'm just looking for a little more information on what exactly this bot is. It made an edit on a page I'm working on Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Thanks for any information you can provide, I'm just curious as to how the bot works. I'm doing this project as part of one of my college courses and my professor is also curious about SmackBot. Thanks! Ohheyheidi (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

mojibake

[edit]

At least two of your recent automatic edits changed Unicode characters to junk. I've corrected the two that were on my watchlist. —Tamfang (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have to start checking the others.... Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
 Done Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

MHP

[edit]

Hi - You haven't responded, so I have no idea whether you saw this. Just pinging you here to make sure. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't seen it. Responded there. Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

unicode problems

[edit]

[3] -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:39, 1 Marc-h 2011 (UTC)

Yadavilli (name)

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Yadavilli (name), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://instapedia.com/m/Yadav.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New functionality

[edit]

This edit shown properties to Template:Ambox that I didn't know about and that replace part of the usages of Template:DMCA (which I liked very much). Debresser (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is going to screw stuff up royally. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps you two would like to contribute to the discussion? If it is going to screw things up, it would be nice to know about it in advance. By the way I was going to ask if the "undated" category parameter is actually used anywhere because I haven't found it yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, the whole reason for leaving the thread on my talk page is to remind me to go and comment. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
checkY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough (talk)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

Copyedit

[edit]

Any reason why your sparse "copyedit" edits are going against the MOS and other guidelines in almost every respect? E.g. here: changing the capitalisation of templates for no good reason, changing U.S. to US against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations, and removing the spaces from around one header and leaving it all the the others (making it inconsistent), instead of leaving it well alone? Here, you mix some good things with again changing U.S. to US, and changing reflist to Reflist. This also just replaced one parameter for no good reason, changed the capitalization for no reason either, and improved one thing at the same time. While you are no longer doing it automated (or at an automated speed at least), you are still doing the same changes. Why is it so hard to leave spaces in headers and template capitalization alone? Fram (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you are keeping busy. Funnily enough, in normal English we don't say "Fred Bloggs (profession)". Nothing is contrary to MoS. I edited in an alternative title for Others and changed it back if you must know. Why is it so hard to leave other editors alone? Rich Farmbrough, 09:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
In the first example, you change U.S. Army to US Army, but the MOS states "In American English, U.S. (with periods) is more common as the standard abbreviation for United States". None of the exceptions in the MOS apply. So why did you change this? Your change to the section header violated WP:CONSISTENCY, a general principle of the MOS. Apparently this time it was by accident, fine, but it still is "contrary to MOS", despite what you claim. The same inconsistency is apparent in your capitalization of templates: changing "wiktionary" and "tocright", but not bothering with "selfref" and "disambig". In general, you violate the second general principle of the MOS over and over again, previously in your AWB edits, now in your "copyedits": "Editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Spaces from section headers, capitalization of templates, changing the MOS supported U.S. to US, ..., these are all your personal preferences which you impose for no good reason. Fram (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is a proper noun. "TOC right" is clearer than tocright. MoS does not support U.S. over US it simply states that U.S. is more common in American English, and specifically deprecates U.S. when juxtaposed with other county acronyms. Take a chill pill, preferably two. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
And which other "country acronyms" were in that article? ... Then again, I had previously said to you that changes like this and the thousands of identical ones shouldn't have been made in that form, introducing US State in all these articles when the actual article is at U.S. state. So this is clearly a continued MOS violation by you. Whether TOC right is clearer than tocright, and whether Template:Contents right wouldn't be even clearer still, is personal preference. And you can hardly claim that Reflist is clearer than reflist or any of the other capitalization changes you made. Apart from that, I am quite calm, thank you, so no need for a chill pill. Apart from that, I notice that I have ignored your "copyedits" when you were still mainly active through AWB, but I shouldn't have ignored these apparently. looking at some older edits with the same edit summary, there are plenty of problems. Changing BCE to BC is a pure MOS violation[4]. Other, more recent ones? Let's take e.g. the end of January: this is again just a capitalization change. 10:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This shows the article was created with BC style. And indeed you should have ignored them because you are not helping anything, you are serving no purpose, by your actions. You are not helping me, you are not helping yourself. You are not helping readers, or other editors. Please return to editing and allow me to do the same. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 10:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SmackBot

[edit]

Clobbers archive 75.57.242.120 (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Known and worked around AWB/API bug. Rich Farmbrough, 13:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Bot jobs on main account

[edit]

Regarding the "Replace deprecated 'WikiProject Space' banner" job you are carrying out using your main account.

  1. Would you be able to do this job on a separate account?
  2. Is there a BRFA for this task or did you decide this was unnecessary in this case?

Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I can run this on another account, though I don't know how that will help.
  2. No BRFA should be needed for this task.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  1. It is something which you have repeatedly been requested to do. There are several reasons for this. One advantage is greater transparency: having thousands of trivial edits on your main account may obscure important edits you are making. Another is that it is easier to block a second account if something goes wrong with the process, whereas some may be more reluctant to block your main account. So, if you don't mind doing so, please run all bot jobs on a separate account in future.
  2. How do you decide whether a BRFA is necessary or not? In some cases, when you have bypassed BRFA it has turned out in hindsight that further discussion would have been helpful.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather run everything on bot accounts, script assisted edits are extremely tedious, AWB edits even more so (though they deliver more value). However for anything up to a few thousand edits, unless it's going to be a recurring event it's just not worth it. My BRFA's languish for months at a time, when they are finally approved I often have to re-code from scratch - enthusiasm is somewhat diminished too. I prefer to get stuff done even if theoretically I should have 100 more BRFA's in the queue. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
That's a helpful response. Could we separate the two issues? Whether you run a job on a separate account or your main account does not seem to be affected by whether or not you obtain approval for a task. In other words, you could continue working with your script or AWB on a separate account. If you can agree that all future jobs be run on this other account could we consider this first matter resolved? About the second issue (whether to go to BRFA or not) I can appreciate your point that the delays can be demotivating. It seems that in the past your reluctance to face these long delays have meant that you've failed to get approval for some processes which would have benefitted from greater attention. Is this a fair assessment? I have a suggestion which might alleviate some concerns. On those occasions when you are confident that the job is sufficiently small and uncontroversial that getting explicit approval is unnecessary, could you at least discuss what you are going to do with at least one other editor (preferably more) before you start? And if you could link to a relevant discussion in your edit summary I think that would also help. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reasonable but hidden assumption that, for example AWB is used for 100s or thousands of edits. Sometimes I use it for a handful of edits, even sometimes just one. This affects both your proposals. Secondly some things actually need preliminary work to determine if they are feasible, before it's worth having a discussion. Thirdly , often something can be floated and get no response until you actually start doing it (On one template I made a proposal, and after two days with no comment, implemented it - only to be told that I had "unilaterally" made a change). Subject to those reservations your ideas are sound, if people will actually behave better as a result. Experience to date is that some, at least, won't. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Okay so would you agree to do any job that will involve more than 100 edits on a separate account, starting from today? And will you provide a decent edit summary with a link for those who want more information to go and find a relevant discussion or official approval? The summary "Minor fixes using AWB" is quite unhelpful and it is these minor edits which are causing most of the controversy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the assessment that it takes so long for a BRFA that even a moderate speed edit rate could accomplish most tasks long before the BRFA ever came back. I also question the need for yet another account (Rich Farmbrough lite as it were) when he already has several. IMO this would in fact make it even harder to determine the source especially since Rich is so well known in the community. It shouldn't matter if he is doing 5 edits or 5000 as long as it is a needed change (like updating the Space banners). Although I do admit that sinc he has so many fans and followers these days watching his edits that creating a new account might draw less attention for the Paparazzi. --Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping from a response from Rich on this, please. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More than 24 hours on, still waiting for a response. Can we make any progress on this issue? You are still running bot jobs on your main account and still using non-desciptive edit summaries such as "minor fixes". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are not bot jobs, would that they were, they would be complete. I'll tweak the edit summary. Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Controversial and/or incorrect AWB edits

[edit]

Any reason that you are still changing the capitalisation of Persondata parameters, despite clear opposition to this from a number of people?[5][6][7][8][9][10], ... It's not as if your code cant' handle it, here it works just fine. This is the kind of edit you shouldn't be making with AWB (lots of diff noise, but no actual change to the page or anything related to it). Your AWB edits also again contain errors which have been pointed out to you previously, like adding the same parameter twice with different values[11] or adding new tags with the wrong month[12][13][14]. Fram (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be an idea to request the folks at AWB to ensure that the Personendata field names are in lower case? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that the previous discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Persondata#Uppercase parameters was just last month and didn't support the change from uppercase to lowercase; and considering that the actual template Template:Persondata uses uppercase in its documentation (and most pages that have persondata use uppercase as well), I see no reason to change AWB (which wouldn't affect Rich anyway, probably, since his "AWB" edits are not really standard AWB anyway). Whether newly added Persondata templates should use upper- or lowercase parameters, or leave it up to whatever the editor prefers, is a different discussion. But changing ones already there from the documented version to a personally preferred version, with the help of automated tools to speed up the conversion, is a clear violation of the rules of use of AWB, and of MOS:STABILITY. Fram (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the date is that because of limitations in the WikiMedia software the date has to be left explicitly - this means code needs monthly updating. It's really not a big deal if a few articles get put in the wrong bucket. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

So, you just continue with this[15][16]? What a surprise... By the way, any reason why you keep the "auto=yes" when you change "unreferenced" to "refimprove"? That parameter is not supported in that template, and I assume that you have actually chcked the articles, so the tag isn't "auto-"added anymore anyway... Oh, and the obligatory actual error is also present: here you have corrected the date you use in the new tags, but adding the year twice is not really helpful... Fram (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because I upgraded all my rules last night, finishing at about 6:30 am, and didn't add back the one that removes auto=yes from refimprove tags. Rich Farmbrough, 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You know you complained about duplicate parameters and I accommodated you, you complained about the order of the parameters and and I accommodated you, then you complained about mixed case and and I accommodated you. Lower case are standard for parameters. I'm not even changing every occurrence I come across, just those where a new parameter is added. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Or stated otherwise: you made multiple errors with duplicate parameters until I repeatedly pointed this out to you (well, you even did it today, as indicated above[17], so it's not really clear whether you really "accommodated" anything); you changed the order of parameters for no good reason, until I pointed this out to you; you mixed uppercase and lowercase parameters in one template, for no good reason, until I pointed this out to you; basically, you don't check your AWB edits thoroughly enough by far, but you just continue despite numerous complaints, restrictions, and blocks. The uppercase vs. lowercase parameters for Persondata has been discussed with you by other people than me, and at the template page: it is clear that there is no consensus for your position. Therefor, you should not be doing this. This has nothing to do with "accommodating" me, this is just following some basic polices and guidelines, and the rules of use of AWB. Fram (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to the actual error I am investigating that now. That is a useful bug report, which I nearly missed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
 Done Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Apart from continuation of the above, you also violate your editing restriction with this. Any reason, by the way, why you are in many other edits also changing "reflist" and "references/" to "Reflist"? These are not included in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects, and I thought you were not supposed to change the capitalization of templates (certainly not in cases wher you otherwise don't change it, like with reflist). Fram (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, reverted. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Above you said: "I'm not even changing every occurrence I come across, just those where a new parameter is added." Oh really? [18] Fram (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "date of birth" is added there. Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I don't have a problem with the other edits but I do agree that we shouldn't be changing persondata to lowercase unless there is some technical reason for this that I do not understand I think leaving it all caps, due to the unique nature and purpose of the template, is best. In the past I have found that the date fields in the persondata template sometimes confuse the date fields in things like infoboxes when they are lowercase. Even in some cases adding the parameters again because they weren't recognized. If they are uppercase I have not seen a problem. --Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The re-adding problem is, I believe, resolved in AWB. Possibly if we want to emphasize the unusual nature (it's not unique) of the template, we should call it {{Meta data}}. Persondata was just foisted on us by de:, who do things very differently in some respects, without tailoring it the en: practices - indeed we could have (could still) incorporate "Person authority" (terrible name, almost worse than "Normdaten") into the template, simplifying things a lot. Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I actually agree that calling it persondata is a bit bland and not very evident of its purpose. Meta data person I think would be more appropriate and better explain what its purpose is. Especially if at some point in the future we start creating metadata templates for other things like ships, buildings or locations for example. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and the reason we have invented natural language is to express the complex concepts we want to express, real world things actually take a lot of coercion into words, take the height of buildings, for example, there is a whole sub-science in defining the top and bottom, and even what constitutes a building, that is known only to tall-building buffs. And yet we are quite happy to talk about the height of most buildings that probably haven't used these definitions, or even to simply cl something a "four story building". Even the person who does use Persondata argued for the retention of what are in effect natural language markers. Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
My apologies, I missed that. Fram (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Considering my mistake above, I'll try to bring this one in a less snarky manner, but I think that this edit changed the capitalization of the Persondata parameters without any change to the values, and additionally it added a "date" parameter to the multiple issues tag, which doesn't use a "date" parameter... Herehere and here you use the capitalized version of the defaultsort for the persondata, instead of the article title (Mac vs. mac). You still use incorrect months in new tags[19]. And of course I still oppose you changing uppercase persondata parameters to lowercase ones, and Kumioko above does as well (and others did in other discussions). Please stop doing this until you have a consensus for it. Fram (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name parameter had previously been added. Multiple issues does take a date parameter, although it is usually unused. I hope to change that soon. The "mac" issue is interesting, and can be addressed I suppose at AWB level - i am already fixing a lot of "Of" and "02" but in the case of mac I can't assume that "mac" is correct and "Mac" wrong, so a regex fix would be harder. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Dating for {{multiple issues}} is done by placing the date as the value of each issue parameter so each issue can have its own date. |date= is used only in conjunction with |expert= when that parameter is used for the type of expert needed. Please don't go making one of your "I'm going to change a widely-used template without discussion because I think I know best" edits. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am aware, among other reasons, since I created {{Multiple issues/message}}. Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Since AnomieBot can do the tagging with no mistakes why the two bots don't cooperate? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since AnomieBot can do the tagging with no mistakes why don't we just let AnomieBot do the tagging? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anomiebot does make mistakes but it doesn't have 5 or 6 edits checking every edit looking for a problem to report. I have noticed occasional hickups in Anomiebots edits but it wasn't what I would consider an error so much as a minor edit so I didn't bother reporting it. I don't think its a problem to have 2 bots doing the same task (I think they both do changes the other doesn't) but I do agree that there are some edits that need to stop here. --Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is just about the dating of tags, then SmackBot is currently running without much problems as well. The problems mainly happen when other edits are combined with it (other Smackbot tasks in the past, and the current AWB edits). Fram (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just that edit and as far as I am concerned the dating of tags falls under the Minor/trivial edit that CBM keeps harping is not allowed. What does it really mean if the tag has a date, very little, the problem still exists regardless of how long its been there and few if any are actually looking at the oldest ones first. I am not going to open that can of worms here though because frankly I don't have a problem with the edit aside from my feelings that its unimportant. I make the assumption that Smackbot does other things based on the fact that SmackBot 42 is pending a bot request. I realize not all got approved and some were probably one off runs that are done but that leaves at least a few items in the 41 previous requests that don't pertain to dating maintenance tags. I have to assume that there are some in there that are not covered by another bot. Even if they are Rich frankly spends far more time on here than most of the other operators combined so the chances are higher he will get it done faster, even if the rate of inconsequential edits is higher. --Kumioko (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of SmackBot's other tasks are not happening right now, because we have transitioned from a laid back "get things done" approach (the essence of Wiki) to an "OMG he made an edit, the world will end" approach. It's no big deal. Things that would be done in one edit will take maybe 10, and those complaining about "unnecessary edits" "Clogged watchlists" and "long histories" will be happy they did the right thing because, they will say to themselves (and each other, probably) "things would have been even worse if we had done nothing". And things will take 10 years that should take 2 months, but no-one will know. And eventually, I suspect, maybe in 4 years maybe in 20, the project will be more and more locked down, and part of the establishment, and become the Encyclopaedia Britannica of Web 3.0 - some new entry will take its role as the cutting edge place to go to find things out, not, maybe, a bad thing. Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You sir are absolutely right and evidence of that is all around us. Less people using it, less people editing it, less edits being made, more articles being deleted, more people discussing and less people editing, we already have more rules and policies than any US state has Rules for driving, etc. Why do today what you can put off till tomorrow. Hard work pays off over time but laziness and complacency pay off now. (shaking my head) every day I get closer and closer to my last edit! --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant of what's going on here. I also don't like the "don't disturb the watchlists" argument but this argument is one reason that I support Rich/SmackBot to do as much as possible in 1 run. I also try most of the things to be part of awb in order to have control of bugs, exceptions, etc. But, right now, SmackBot adds tags in a way that produces more bugs than anomiebot and persondata in a way that produces more bugs than rjw's bot. awb provides a way to add persondata with no bugs but Rich uses a different method! So, my problem is not "many edits" or "trivial edits" but "wrong edits" (duplicated entries in persondata, wrong date tags etc.) and "unnecessary changes". I also get a lot of fire from Carl and others but we have to find some way to work all together. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bot does not, as far as I know have any problems, except that I don't use AWB for it much if at all now -throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and making development a question of perl rather than regex/C#. Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oh and AWB does make mistakes in the name part of Persondata. Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I am assuming that one of the "errors" Magioladitis is mentioning is the lowercasing of the persondata and the random casing changes the some (although I also prefer the templates to have an uppercase first letter) have a problem with. Perhaps it is not the bot but your personal usage of AWB with your main account (i'm not really sure and I'm not really sure it matters). Personally the lowercasing of the persondata is the one I find most annoying and could personally care less about a few unneeded casing changes or minor/trivial edits. Even the Persondata isn't something I would complain about since it isnt't "breaking something", but I don't agree with it and prefer the persondata to be uppercase. --Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example: AWB fixed the date bug inside cite templates and I see no reason to use a custom made function that adds wrong dates (January 2011 instead of March 2011). This is minor of course but makes me feel insecure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The version I have still adds {Subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME} Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Javascript in categories

[edit]

The following .js pages are categorised in clean-up cats

Rich Farmbrough, 14:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

All fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Teuthidodrilus

[edit]

Hello! Seems to me you've made a mistake in the article. The term "notochaetae" usually refers to "bristles" not "tentacles". As far as I understood these worms have ten tentacle-like anterior appendages made of soft tissue. The notochaetae (dorsal bristles) are chitinous. You may find some details in the video. Possessing long anterior tentacles is rather common feature in polychaetes especially in cirratulid. However they are not so long in benthic forms. The morphology of notochaetes of Teuthidodrilus are posed as unusual in the abstract of Osborn's et al. paper. Unfortunately I've no access to the full text paper (possibly you have it) and can't get to know what does «concavo-convex paddles» look like and whether a paddle consists of single or multiple bristles. If it's just a paddle-like single notochaeta there's no wonder. Mithril (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've find some "close up" photo. The notochaetae are very special. Mithril (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "tentacles" was added by Diver Dave in this edit. ". Ten tentacles as long or longer than its body protrude from its head, along with six pairs of curved nuchal organs that allow the animal to taste and smell underwater.[citation needed]" which seems to agree with what you say. I don't think I have changed anything relating to notochaetae in that article. Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I must have become crazy. How did I get to your discussion page instead of his one? I'm greatly sorry. Mithril (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's all interesting. Rich Farmbrough, 02:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

CFX Bank History

[edit]

Hi, Just went thru the history of CFX Bank.The bank was not formed in 2006.It was formed much earlier and in 2004 (not 2006) it merged with Century Bank. This link is useful - http://allafrica.com/stories/200404160641.html

Please follow the link which shows CFX Bank was in existance as of REGISTERED BANKING INSTITUTIONS: 30 JUNE, 2003 http://www.rbz.co.zw/300603/appendix2.asp

In addition look at the lastest report which shows CFX has been liquidated mostly due to the ownership dispute with EX-ENG Capital director.So on its History its relevant to include the ownership dispute which is well documented such that it cant be eliminated from CFX History.Please follow link. 

http://www.newsday.co.zw/article/2011-03-14-cfx-to-windup-operations

And this link too http://www.assetrecovery.org/kc/node/dc1241d3-4f52-11de-bacd-a7d8a60b2a36.0;jsessionid=809A69B1CD59C82ACE33458D59AEE7D7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAILTHECHIEF (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note

[edit]
  • The AUTOMOBILE magazine, August 1983.

SmackBot

[edit]

Smackbot, Rich, Spencer et al. Please let us know what we need to send to you so you can stop reverting the University School Wikipedia page. There are descriptions (such as "the Greater Cleveland Ohio area" that we want to use - why are these changes being reverted? Similar, "Other Championships" is an appropriate heading for Tennis and Lacrosse because these are not OHSAA sports. The list goes on and on... Please advise what we need to provide you to prevent the constant editing of our webpage. Thank you. K. Pleasant, University School Director of Marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcpleasant (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace

[edit]

Hi, I notice you have been going over my user sub-pages and wondered if there was an issue? Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No issue, the {{Userspace draft}} template needs to be dated, most are anyway, I generally pick up any undated ones once a month, but some of these may be a little older. Rich Farmbrough, 11:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2011_March&oldid=606626523"