Jump to content

User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2017 October

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

Previous · Index · Next


Jump-to links

2024   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2023   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2022   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2021   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2020   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2019   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2018   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2017   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2016   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2015   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2014   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2013   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2012   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2011   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2010   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2009   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2008   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2007   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2006   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2005   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

2004                                                           Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

A Lady listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A Lady. Since you had some involvement with the A Lady redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. feminist 17:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #280

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Added a css class to values that link to redirects so they can more easily be identified by editors who want that for maintenance work (phabricator:T70567) Thanks Matej!
    • Continued work on persistent editing of forms as part of the work to support lexicographical data (phabricator:T173742, phabricator:T173744)
    • Finishing touches on adding full URIs for external identifiers to our RDF export so we're good citizens of the semantic web (phabricator:T121274)
    • Added a new mw.wikibase.getAllStatements Lua function in addition to the existing getBestStatements, that returns all statements regardless of their rank (phabricator:T176124)
    • Looking into an issue where unwanted email notifications are being sent (phabricator:T174794)
    • Released version 2.1.1 of the base DataValues component

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

[edit]

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #281

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Breaking change: "wb_entity_per_page" table will not be updated and replicated on ToolLabs anymore
    • A mw.wikibase.getLabelByLang Lua function will be added (phabricator:T173262)
    • The mw.wikibase.sitelink Lua function will accept a second parameter with the global identifier of a wiki (e.g. "enwiki") to link to (phabricator:T142903)
    • Had to temporarily turn off showing Wikidata's changes on Commons and Russian Wikipedia because of database issues. We're working on turning it back on.
    • Continued work on persistently storing edits to Forms on Lexemes
    • Finishing work on checking constraints on qualifiers and references with the constraint checks gadget
    • Fixed a bug where notification emails for Wikidata changes were sent when they shouldn't have been (phabricator:T174794)
    • Full URIs for external identifiers will soon be in the RDF export (phabricator:T121274)

Please don't lint talk pages

[edit]

You linted my talk page, so I got a pointless notification alert about it. Please turn your bots off for pages which create notifications for people. Thanks, Miserlou (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miserlou, the task was to change a poorly-formatted [[::User call, which meant that invariably some people got pinged in the process. There's no way to guarantee that these changes won't ping someone; it could happen on a user, article, or Wikipedia talk page.
On a related note, Rich, fixing this error (while appreciated) goes against your cosmetic editing restriction. It looks like you've stopped, but please do not restart it (and/or request a bot task for it if you intend on continuing). Primefac (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker) You're right, I didn't realize they had already cut off the tidy support for that. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have been very lazy in not asking for that be be lifted. However this does not go against it, because it changes the rendering of the page. It surprises me how many knowledgeable and wise people get that wrong.
Also notice that very few active editors will have messages from 2008-2010 on their talk pages, so the pingage should be minimal.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry for the "ping". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Ideally, this should have been handled by a bot to prevent the thousands of notifications you are sending out because of this. Can you stop doing this and make the appropriate bot request? Thanks. Nihlus 23:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the comment from Miserlou above, I have avoided user talk pages that have comments dated this year or last. All other user talk pages that I am not skipping for other reasons have been cleaned.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Per WP:AWBRULES #3, I am asking that you seek out consensus for these large scale edits before continuing. Nihlus 00:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to fast-track a bot request on this as soon as consensus is demonstrated, which will not be hard. Best to go the path of least annoyance. ~ Rob13Talk 00:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure why you would do that when I have just told you that I have done all the AWB work on user talk pages that I intend to do. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Just today you have fixed lint errors on talk pages after being ask to stop and after you said that you wouldn't. A bot request has been submitted for this, so please stop. Nihlus 19:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. I said that I would not be cleaning any more "User talk" pages with AWB, and that I had completed that phase before you threatened me with AWB Rule 3. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Also I think it rather disingenuous to say "a bot request has been submitted" when you actually mean that you have submitted a bot request. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
That is a pointless distinction as you're still sending unnecessary notifications. And it doesn't matter who submitted the bot request, the fact is simple: this is a task that will require thousands of edits, will notify users on their talk page if not done by a bot, and requires approval before being completed. I will not discuss this with you further at this point. My next response will be at WP:ANI if this continues. Thanks. Nihlus 19:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Refusal to discuss and more threats.. not cool. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bug (album) (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bug (album) (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Bug (album) (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restriction

[edit]

Can you explain how these two edits are not a violation of your editing restriction (specifically the second edit)? The page in question, Mercedes Chacón Porras, has a link to it on La Galería de las Mujeres de Costa Rica that has been there since at least May. One of your tags is invalid and appears to be only cosmetic in nature since one was in August and the other today. There are many others like this that you have edited today that were linked when you first added the template. Nihlus 23:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to Nihlus, speaks complete garbage and wants everyone to be blocked.--Biografer (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to WP:BATTLEGROUND. Secondly please research what a cosmetic edit is. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
If you won't address my question I will seek a restriction on your meatbot like editing, especially when you are making errors on thousands of pages by adding orphan tags on pages that are not orphans. Nihlus 14:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nihlus, I think perhaps there's a bit of miscommunication happening here. At Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, it notes that Rich's editing restriction includes that he "is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval)" Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to believe that placing the orphan tag on the article is incorrect? It is not. As is, the article has one inbound link to it. Per the description at Category:Orphaned articles, that category includes articles that "have very few or no incoming links" (emphasis mine). With only one inbound link, Mercedes Chacón Porras definitely qualifies under this definition. Further, AWB, which Rich is authorized to use and was using, tags articles with {{orphan}} when an article has less than 3 incoming links. Granted, there are other definitions that say it must have zero incoming links. But, this is a matter of definition. Accusing Rich of abusing that definition when it's built into AWB is wrong. Take the issue up with the AWB programmers please. Rich was complying with his editing restriction in doing this tagging. If AWB is improperly tagging articles that have more than 3 inbound links with the orphan tag, the issue is with AWB, not Rich. I pulled 5 such orphan taggings from August and September:
It appears he's doing what's supposed to be done. Can you highlight errors that have been made, noting that the definition of "orphan" is at least ambiguous and can include articles with 3 or less inbound links? I.e., can you find places where he's placed an orphan tag on an article that had 4 or more inbound links? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft: The page I linked to (Mercedes Chacón Porras) has one link in article space, so why would the orphan tag be removed? Why would it be an orphan with one link in August and now not an orphan with one link? It doesn't make sense. My assertion was that either his August tagging or October detagging is in error, not both. Is he just removing the orphan tags now because they don't show after two months? That would definitely be a cosmetic edit because it doesn't change the rendered page. Nihlus 15:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at this section above. As I noted, there's some disparity in definitions. Rich is actually correct in both cases. I think he can change his mind :) Now, if Rich edit warred to his preferred definition of "orphan", there would be a problem. But, he hasn't. I'm honestly not seeing a problem here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's not correct. It just further shows that one of his tagging sprees was a massive error as he probably used his own regex to add the information (or is using the "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages" setting). I'm seeking clarification from him which he is purposefully not providing. Nihlus 16:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nihlus, please. AWB places the tag on articles with 3 or less inbound links, as I demonstrated. Rich is permitted to use AWB in this manner. There's no problem here. This is a tempest in a teapot. There's no issue here. Let's move on, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Despite Hammersoft's misjudgment, I am still seeking clarification of the situation from you. Please respond in kind. Nihlus 16:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Misjudgment? Well, whatever. We see things differently. That's called different perspective, not misjudgment. If you want to pursue this, be my guest. There's plenty of places where you can raise this (non) issue. But, it's already been addressed above, as I noted, and there is no problem, as I noted. If you want to call that a misjudgment, by all means please do so. Perhaps there are other voices who will agree with you. I've asked you for an answer; show an article where there were more than three inbound links which he tagged as orphaned. You've yet to supply an answer to that. Would you please answer that? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm done discussing this with you and would like to discuss this with Rich. Thanks. Nihlus 16:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, but I asked you a reasonable question. I've checked quite a few of these taggings, noted five of them above, and can find no problems with the orphan taggings. You're saying there's a problem with the orphan taggings, but I can't find one with more than 3 inbound links. So far, I haven't found one with more than 1. Perhaps you are aware of one that has more than 3. If not, could you at least grant that you have no such evidence? We're trying to work together here, not at odds. I'm not going to tell you that the lack of you providing such evidence means you have none (non-answers don't count as answers, despite what anyone says), but if you are going to pursue this through dispute resolution, it would be a good idea to have evidence that he's been tagging things with more than 3 inbound links as orphaned. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Hammersoft has explained the situation very well, and far more patiently than I. I will only add that we are looking at changing the default behaviour of AWB to zero incoming links (other than lists or disambiguation pages), as this seems to be the current consensus (see WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE), and specifically removing some of the tags relating to August 201c7.
  • This is the second time that I have seen you refuse further discussion on my talk page. I understand that you are frustrated, but this is not helpful.
  • All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm not refusing discussion; I'm narrowing it down because the response from you is what matters. That is all I was asking for. I do recommend that you point out what you are doing if you are correcting a mistake from a previous edit, especially when making thousands of them or just make a quick explanation of your edits when someone asks. Your initial refusal to provide this information is what led to this protected discussion. Nihlus 19:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the response from me that matters at all - the facts are what matter. Hammersoft provided you with them explicitly, I provided you with them implicitly - had you followed reply and researched what a cosmetic edit is you would have gone away happy and better informed. If you followed the path others have, you would doubtless have tried to use your new found knowledge against me at some point in the future, but let us hope that you would have taken a more positive path.
RF 20:32 16 October 2017.
It's your editing restriction, so it definitely does matter. I'm satisfied with the reasoning for the changes (although I still think they are pointless and a colossal waste of time). I think minimizing the amount of wikilawyering you do and increasing your respect for the community's wishes will better serve you in the future rather than relying on others to weakly argue your points for you. Thanks. Nihlus 19:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the solution would be for User:Rich Farmbrough to try to steer away from edits like Special:Diff/805591377 for a bit, and for User:Nihlus for steer away from Rich for a bit. Then hopefully there will be a useful and positive outcome for everyone and the Encyclopedia. —Sladen (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I see no reason to stay away while he makes controversial edits while ignoring the concerns of the community. I have no problem with his other actions, though. Although, the edit you linked does seem to be a blatant editing restriction violation. Nihlus 19:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you're not wanting to discuss this with me, and I'm not trying to anger you. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out (as above) that the editing restriction "except(s) those changes that are built-in to stock AWB". I believe that {{Use dmy dates}} is used by AWB, though I am not expert on it. That being the case, the edit noted by Sladen is perfectly allowable under Rich's editing restrictions. Even if it's not part of standard AWB, it's still allowable under his editing restrictions, per the portion that says "or those that have demonstrable consensus". Given that {{Use dmy dates}} is in use on 670,000 articles, consensus seems to support its usage as Rich is doing. There seems to be a focus here on the portion of his editing restriction that says "is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page" without including the parenthetical allowed exceptions that follows that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians from Harvard has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians from Harvard, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For using AWB in a brilliant way! Magioladitis (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #282

[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #282

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:SBAWB

[edit]

Template:SBAWB has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes Thanks for leaving a note. I wish, though, you had left a note with out making the nomination, 95% of XfD that relate to things I have created can could be dealt with without a nomination, saving much overall effort. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks you for all your kind support on my talkpage and sharing some stuff that I didn't even knew about. Biografer (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if we will exchange e-mails or Skypes? I feel, like you are my only friend here. :)--Biografer (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use Skype very often as it seems to make my computers run slow. You are welcome to email me, using the link under "tools". I will try to watch out for any mail from you, but I don't always respond quickly! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Deletion of {{Persondata}}

[edit]

Hi SmackBot,

I'm the bot who is deleting {{Persondata}}. I noticed your edit on Rex Brinkworth in which you added {{Persondata}}. This template is deprecated and deleted. Please stop adding {{Persondata}}. In case you want to support the Persondata project you can help with the migration of the dataset to Wikidata at KasparBot's tool. See Wikipedia:Persondata or contact my operator T.seppelt in case you have any questions.

Thank you very much, -- KasparBot (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kinda silly to be notifying someone about a ten-year-old edit, eh T.seppelt? Primefac (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Never mind, didn't notice the article was recreated earlier today. Apologies for the pointless ping. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Yes, but the change has a date field which could be checked easily enough. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:ISO 3166 numeric

[edit]

Template:ISO 3166 numeric has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

accidental removal at ANI

[edit]

Rich, did you notice that this edit reduced the page size by 11,140 bytes? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like editing through an edit conflict, been a problem for years. Needs fixing. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out.  Fixed All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!

[edit]
Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons.


New: The Women in Red World Contest

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Filter 380

[edit]

Not sure but I think letting in edits with refs skip the filter might be helpful? See Special:AbuseLog/19551358 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=Flechette1866 . --QEDK (愛 • 海) 14:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #283

[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #282

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

Question (again)

[edit]

Why would you make edits such as this when you are fully aware that it was something discussed and approved of in my bot's BRFA? Nihlus 00:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you object?
Why do you think I am "fully aware"?
WHy did you censor my comments which were highly relevant?
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

WP:CLEAN

[edit]

Hello Rich Farmbrough:
You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 09:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future of outlines

[edit]

Hi Rich,

Here's a summary/update on my script writing efforts, in case you would like to provide insight of any kind...

I'm in the process of building scripts for viewing outlines and for outline development.

So far, there is:

  • User:The Transhumanist/OutlineViewAnnotationToggler.js – this one provides a menu item to turn annotations on/off, so you can view lists bare when you want to (without annotations). When done, it will work on (the embedded lists of) all pages, not just outlines. Currently it is limited to outlines only, for development and testing purposes. It supports hotkey activation/deactivation of annotations, but that feature currently lacks an accurate viewport location reset for retaining the location on screen that the user was looking at. The program also needs an indicator that tells the user it is still on. Otherwise, you might wonder why a bare list has annotations in edit mode, when you go in to add some. :) Though it is functional as is. Check it out. After installing it, look at Outline of cell biology, and press ⇧ Shift+Alt+a. And again.
  • User:The Transhumanist/RedlinksRemover.js – strips out entries in outlines that are nothing but a redlink. It removes them right out of the tree structure. But only end nodes (i.e., not parent nodes, which we need to keep). It delinks redlinks that have non-redlink offspring, or that have or are embedded in an annotation. It does not yet recognize entries that lack a bullet (it treats those as embedded).

It is my objective to build a set of scripts that fully automate the process of creating outlines. This end goal is a long way off (AI-complete?). In the meantime, I hope to increase editor productivity as much as I can. Fifty percent automation would double an editor's productivity. I think I could reach 80% automation (a five-fold increase in productivity) within a couple years. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

There's more:

  • User:The Transhumanist/StripSearchInWikicode.js – another script, which strips WP search results down to a bare list of links, and inserts wikilink formatting for ease of insertion of those links into lists. This is useful for gathering links for outlines. I'd like this script to sort its results. So, if you know how, or know someone who knows how, please let me know. A more immediate problem is that the resultant list is interlaced with extra CR/LFs, which I can't figure out how to get rid of.

Script and script feature requests (for outlines) are welcome. The Transhumanist 06:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of -ismist Recordings for deletion

[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –Miles Edgeworth Talk 15:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious three years!

[edit]
Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Request for a revert

[edit]

Hi Rich, can you be kind and undo this revision here? I can't revert more then 3 times, and I already did more then a couple revisions on the other article. Many thanks.--Biografer (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The doi only takes you to the resource page. The article itself is now at https://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.3372/wi.36.36152. I have changed the links appropriately. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the help, but this is what I wanted you to do. You see, what's the point of an archive if the new link can't be archived there? Now watch for EncycloPetey for me and revert any of his reverts. Thanks.--Biografer (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, in this case we now have a link to the document, a link to the doi and a link to an archive of the document (albeit from a different url).
As for reversion, it's wise to engage in constructive debate rather than get into a revert war. I am pleased to see EncycloPetey back.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #284

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Continued working on persistent storage of edits on Lexeme pages
    • Fixed an encoding problem in the SVG download of query results in the query service (phabricator:T178564)
    • Fixed a problem with change dispatching changes to Wikipedia and co, that sometimes lead to single wikis falling way behind. (T179060)
    • Added full URIs for external identifiers to the RDF export
    • You can leave feedback on how improved fulltext search result page should look like

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.



Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2017_October&oldid=1212152936"