October 2011-August 2012 inclusive

Previous Next

Femto Bot and Helpful Pixie Bot

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

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

Thomas Seckford

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

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

WP:RFPP

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Date formattings

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

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

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

-

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

-

you deleted this complaint fast enough.

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

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

{{Ford V8 engines}}

and

{{Ford_V8_engines}}

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

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

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

User:Helpful Pixie Bot

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

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

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

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

AWB removing GOCE template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:DBK Works albums

Category:DBK Works albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Page Music albums

Category:Page Music albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

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

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

WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

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

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

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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

TB

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

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

Database error debug/fix?

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback II

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

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

Asdas

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

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

Mystery

Please solve this mystery if you can...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make helpful pixie a little less eager to be helpful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected template moved

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

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

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

E-mail notification

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

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:JVC Records albums

Category:JVC Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take care

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

HIV/AIDS Project

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

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

Cleanup-laundry

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

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

Scotland (continued)

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

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

New template suggestion?

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

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

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

SmackBot

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Peel (huntsman)

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

Thomas Skinner (Ceylon)

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

A barnstar for you!

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

A cup of tea for you!

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

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

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

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

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

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

WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

Featured content: The best of the week

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

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

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

Help with "Article Reads Like News Release"

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

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

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

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

Fishing...

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

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

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

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

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

E-mail

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

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

RfC

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

Bug bash

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

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

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

Emacs

Don't cap Pinky.

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

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

Kinesis

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

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

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

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

WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics

Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures

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

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

Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter

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

New error?

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

   (SQL query hidden)

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

Film lists

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

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

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

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

Sir Robert Peake

Needs sorting out.

My RFA

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

John Paulet, 5th Marquess of Winchester

Link first occurrence of Basing House, not the second

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

Use dmy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Robertson (British Army officer)

Needs sources.

William Wynne Ryland

dob
Last hanged at Tyburn
paper evidence

Ceibal project

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

Luigj Gurakuqi University Library

Replace body with

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

Bibliography

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

The Reader

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

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

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

Continuous spontaneous ventilation

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

Bash shell

Keyboard shortcuts:

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

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

Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso

$ - dollars
conversion
Caps
missing link around pipe?
PoV

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

Archibald Skirving

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

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

Mirrorbot

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

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

Daniel Avery

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

Mahmood Hussein Mattan - tidy up.

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

William Roper (biographer)

Birth year 1496
Done – I corrected the birth year in the article to match the sources given.
Also that "Biblical City" link if I can find it
(in French) Site du Conseil général de Mayotte.
(in French) Les communes de Mayotte sur le site de l'Insee

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

Proposed deletion of Keith Griffin (economist)

The article Keith Griffin (economist) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Mughrabi Gate ramp reconstruction (February 2007)

Repetition.

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

speedy deletion

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

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

article deletion

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

template conservatism

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

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

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

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

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

WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

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

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

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

ml.wikiquote

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

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

Eshan Sharma

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

Requesting help with reflinks

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

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

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

ml.wikiquote

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

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

Categories in user space

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

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

Dinah

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

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

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

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

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

Date templates

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

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

Acts_of_the_Apostles#Speeches

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

Waiting time for Helpful Pixie Bot

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mistake by Helpful Pixie Bot

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

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

Stephen Skinner

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

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

Mistake by Helpful Pixie Bot

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

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

Template:Noc

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

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

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

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

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

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

WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

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

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

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

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

Hilux Surf

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

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

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

Please comment on Category talk:Lists of people by nationality

Responding to RFCs

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

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

AWB errors

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

Please comment on Talk:Judas Maccabeus

Responding to RFCs

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

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Kingsmill massacre

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Burma

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Zola Levitt

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox character

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Quick templates

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Trial as an adult

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:AlgoSec

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Suicide

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Suicide

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Resolution of problems?

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

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

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

Please check

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

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

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

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

Problems with these noplot AWB edits

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

Please comment on Talk:Francis Bacon (artist)

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:William Lane Craig

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Pregnancy

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:War of the Pacific

Responding to RFCs

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

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Serer people

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Girl gamer

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Mexico City

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Coat of arms of Spain

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Mexico City

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Harriet Harman

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Split tax avoidance and tax evasion

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2000

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Men's rights

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Laurence Tribe

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox television

Responding to RFCs

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

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

To do

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

email

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

Deletion of article Jayen Varma

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

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

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

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

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

Karol Szymanowski

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

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

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

DNB articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Lexi Thompson

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Ugg boots

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Focolare Movement

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lanka

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Gabriela Mistral

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Human

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:List of melodic death metal bands

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Foxconn

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Homosexuality

Responding to RFCs

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

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican)

Responding to RFCs

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

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Omdurman

Responding to RFCs

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

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

WikiHistories

Here are some relevant links regarding the WikiHistories project:

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

Mirror Bot

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

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

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

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

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

A beer for you

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Theatre

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Astrology

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:External links

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Nazism

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Firefox

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Pan Am (TV series)

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:List of new religious movements

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Dana Tyler

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Clerks

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Ejaculation

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Turkism

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Falun Gong

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Responding to RFCs

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

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Something gone wrong?

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

Please comment on Talk:United States Armed Forces

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:OPERA neutrino anomaly

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Proposed deletion of Bruce Kaphan

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

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

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Christiane Pflug

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Stoughton, Massachusetts article

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

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Deleteme

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

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states

Responding to RFCs

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

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Templates

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

Please comment on Talk:Tamara Toumanova

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Coin toss

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Order

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Responding to RFCs

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

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Protect IP Act

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Responding to RFCs

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

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

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

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Nomination of John Shipp (soldier) for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Circumcision

Responding to RFCs

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

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

File copyright problem with File:Dosansen InoEkisya.JPG

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Usage share of operating systems

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Template talk:Canadian federal political parties

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Responding to RFCs

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

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

an edit of yours mentioned in a discussion

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

Please comment on Talk:Joint custody

Responding to RFCs

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation

Please comment on Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Please comment on Talk:Epiphany (web browser)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Nomination of My Own Planet for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 16:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

InterWiki template

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

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Pouring gasoline on a fire

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

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

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

Mas creation of templates seems to violate your editing restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:My Own Planet albums

Category:My Own Planet albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sad...

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

Please comment on Talk:27 Club

A request for Femto Bot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI

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

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

Help

Hello Rich,

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

From the editors: A call for contributors

Opinion essay: There is a deadline

Interview: Contracting for the Foundation

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

WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos

Featured content: The best of the week

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Rich Farmbrough! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change

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

dated cleanup categories

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

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

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

Prostitution in Hong Kong article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blanker

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

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

Template:Wikisource1911Enc Citation

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

re main page

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

Arbcom

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

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

The Signpost: 7 November2011

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

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

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

Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

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

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

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

Femto Bot error

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

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

Removal of year from reference for Trichopodus leerii

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

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

Observation

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

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

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

Cleanup cats by month

Clean-up categories

(refresh)

Subtotals
August 2006	1
October 2006	1
November 2006	2
December 2006	2
January 2007	5
February 2007	6
March 2007	6
April 2007	5
May 2007	7
June 2007	6
July 2007	8
August 2007	9
September 2007	9
October 2007	11
November 2007	12
December 2007	17
January 2008	13
February 2008	14
March 2008	16
April 2008	19
May 2008	17
June 2008	22
July 2008	19
August 2008	21
September 2008	25
October 2008	22
November 2008	25
December 2008	24
January 2009	25
February 2009	30
March 2009	28
April 2009	29
May 2009	34
June 2009	30
July 2009	32
August 2009	31
September 2009	34
October 2009	38
November 2009	36
December 2009	38
January 2010	41
February 2010	41
March 2010	40
April 2010	42
May 2010	45
June 2010	43
July 2010	43
August 2010	46
September 2010	51
October 2010	52
November 2010	56
December 2010	55
January 2011	55
February 2011	54
March 2011	52
April 2011	49
May 2011	55
June 2011	57
July 2011	58
August 2011	55
September 2011	60
October 2011	62
November 2011	59
December 2011	64
January 2012	63
February 2012	63
March 2012	61
April 2012	60
May 2012	61
June 2012	60
July 2012	63
August 2012	62
September 2012	64
October 2012	62
November 2012	61
December 2012	67
January 2013	65
February 2013	67
March 2013	68
April 2013	69
May 2013	68
June 2013	70
July 2013	66
August 2013	69
September 2013	65
October 2013	72
November 2013	71
December 2013	73
January 2014	72
February 2014	67
March 2014	69
April 2014	70
May 2014	70
June 2014	67
July 2014	71
August 2014	71
September 2014	67
October 2014	73
November 2014	67
December 2014	65
January 2015	73
February 2015	70
March 2015	73
April 2015	69
May 2015	71
June 2015	74
July 2015	68
August 2015	72
September 2015	71
October 2015	69
November 2015	78
December 2015	72
January 2016	73
February 2016	76
March 2016	77
April 2016	79
May 2016	79
June 2016	78
July 2016	74
August 2016	78
September 2016	75
October 2016	77
November 2016	76
December 2016	79
January 2017	80
February 2017	76
March 2017	85
April 2017	80
May 2017	80
June 2017	79
July 2017	95
August 2017	85
September 2017	92
October 2017	94
November 2017	89
December 2017	92
January 2018	91
February 2018	90
March 2018	88
April 2018	92
May 2018	93
June 2018	95
July 2018	97
August 2018	96
September 2018	100
October 2018	100
November 2018	94
December 2018	97
January 2019	101
February 2019	93
March 2019	103
April 2019	99
May 2019	108
June 2019	98
July 2019	102
August 2019	103
September 2019	103
October 2019	100
November 2019	103
December 2019	97
January 2020	99
February 2020	104
March 2020	112
April 2020	111
May 2020	112
June 2020	114
July 2020	109
August 2020	112
September 2020	115
October 2020	115
November 2020	115
December 2020	103
January 2021	110
February 2021	104
March 2021	106
April 2021	111
May 2021	116
June 2021	114
July 2021	116
August 2021	117
September 2021	113
October 2021	115
November 2021	117
December 2021	121
January 2022	122
February 2022	115
March 2022	122
April 2022	118
May 2022	117
June 2022	118
July 2022	120
August 2022	125
September 2022	122
October 2022	123
November 2022	125
December 2022	121
January 2023	121
February 2023	124
March 2023	125
April 2023	125
May 2023	123
June 2023	119
July 2023	121
August 2023	130
September 2023	121
October 2023	127
November 2023	124
December 2023	132
January 2024	134
February 2024	131
March 2024	136
April 2024	128
May 2024	129
June 2024	139
July 2024	140
August 2024	133
September 2024	136
October 2024	145
November 2024	193
Undated articles	0

All articles

16,679

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

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

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

One request - I think your last edit of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piping in Persondata?

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

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

Alton, Illinois, United States

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Economy of Xiguan

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

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

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

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

Suggest you upgrade your browser/fonts.

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

Last member of the Gang Of Four arrives

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

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

Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Stirring it up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typos

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

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

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

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

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

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

How amusing

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

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

Nothing substantial was added at any point....

Rich Farmbrough, 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

The death of Abu Bakr ibn Umar

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

Thanks

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

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

Thanks Rich for clearifying the policy.

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

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

Another view

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

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

Talkback

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

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

{{User talk:Cyberpower678/Statussig}} may be contrary to the guidelines. I wouldn't mention it but you never know when someone who attaches more importance to rules than results will review your edits.

But seriously the more you sign the more that page becomes a vandal vector. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broken refs

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

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

Violation of editing restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can at any point self revert the block.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblocked. Xeno is clearly an involved admin, he proposed the original restrictions and had to recuse as an arb on the recent case. Further, the violations linked to above are trivial and all edits involved other changes. Blocking for capitalisation changes from {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}} is punitive and provides no benefit to the encyclopedia. Fences&Windows 02:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
This was an ill-considered and poorly executed administrative action. You neglected to consult either myself or the community, and now put Rich Farmbrough in a precarious position of wondering whether or not he should comply with the restrictions currently listed at WP:RESTRICT. My interactions with Rich Farmbrough have been strictly administrative in nature; proposing an editing restriction does not make one 'wp:involved'; and the reason I recused as an arbitrator on the ongoing case request was specifically to retain the ability to take administrative actions should Rich Farmbrough violate his editing restrictions.
Rich, I would urge you to seek the lifting or modification of the restrictions prior to making further cosmetic changes to wikicode. –xeno^talk 03:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. I am in no more of a "precarious position" than before, less so in fact, because I have more information than before. Moreover while you were certainly right to recuse at Arbcom, in the case request that was denied some days ago, your post there showed that you are certainly non-neutral and involved. Any reasonable reading of that request to open a case would support that, and if you had wanted to start to create the appearance of being non-involved, you should have simply stated that in your recusal, and not taken part in the request. Moreover the only reason that I have not mentioned these, apparently egregious, failings previously, is that I was hoping you would see how ridiculous the block is on its face, without muddying the waters with matters of propriety. From our above conversation, I think I may have succeeded, at least in part. Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

Rich. Please focus the time and energy on Wikipedia content. Something that everyone can benefit from. —Sladen (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I would if certain people would allow me to get on with things. See below. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Rich Farmbrough's cosmetic changes restriction. –xeno^talk 14:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Template: . *

Edits by:

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

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

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

Bot Request (Ice Hockey)

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Disc

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

Request

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

How

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

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

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

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

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

(ec)

Most importantly it's obvious, once Thryduulf found the target spot.
Two of the three contributors explicitly support the redirect, the third does implicitly
The reason for deletion "Redirects to article that does not have a single mention of "Don", "Bartolo" or "Don Bartolo" in " it falls once the target is identified, if indeed it doesn't anyway - taking "implausible" with it. NN is not a deletion criteria for redirects, indeed it is often the reason for their creation, since the subjects don't merit a stand-alone article.

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

Attribution

When you copy text directly from a public domain source, it isn't sufficient to add it as a source, you have to properly attribute the text as well to make clear that it is not only the source for the information, but also for the actual text. The text you took and slightly altered from the Historical Encyclopedia of Illinois in Adjutant general of Illinois is not correctly attributed. Please correct this. Fram (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a bet with myself that you would say exactly that. You have a strange definition of "slightly altered", or you are just using the edit as an excuse to browbeat. I would have guessed the latter but from the strange things you have been saying in the case of Richard Arthur Norton, I cannot be sure. Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Considering that you even copied the typos of the original, I wonder why you made a bety with yourself instead of just doing the right thing. Anyway, I have attributed it for you, correcred some typos, added a category, and expanded the article. As for the RAN case, apart from one misinterpreted example I have the feeling that most neutral people agreed with my comments, considering that it ended in a CCI investigation and a temporary topic ban. Fram (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the Fuller article. Edit summary is very humorous. Rich Farmbrough, 11:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

You're welcome. Please add at least one source to new articles in the future. Fram (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Epic fail! Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for turning my drive-by post into an article, and kudos. :D Dru of Id (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Please be careful when using subst:

Hi, re this edit - the subst: failed, because it's being used inside <ref>...</ref> tags. As a result, refs 1,2,3 at the bottom of the article now contain the text {{subst:PAGENAME}}, which is not what was intended. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Thought that bug was fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

HBW Tax Excel

Hi Rich, Snowman has indicated that you might be interested (Josè Luis Copete sent it on today). If this is true, send me a line to [redacted] and then delete the e-mail here. I will send.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

G4 deletion

You deleted NHFFL (New Hampshire Fantasy Football League) as a G4, recreation of content that was deleted per a deletion discussion. However, all previous deletions of that page and the similar NHFFL were after a speedy, never after a deletion discussion. I may of course have missed the deletion discussion anyway (providing a link to it in cases where it was under a different name helps), but otherwise, could you please refrain from using G4 in cases where only speedy deletion has been used before? Fram (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:El84.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:El84.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page ~~for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page~~ for a Commons-hosted image. [extra cruft expurgated] Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Great Justice!

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

Your signature

It looks like the "nbsp" before the time in your signature is stopping the auto timezone correction from adjusting the date, would you consider changing it ? Mt king ^(edits) 20:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Any better? Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

That seems to have fixed it, thanks for that. Mt king ^(edits) 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Shared IP templates

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

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Rcsprinter123's talk page.
Message added 11:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rcsprinter (gossip) 11:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at The Master of Mayhem's talk page.
Message added 15:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Master of Mayhem (talk, contribs, email) 15:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

direct quotations

Hi, Rich. When making changes such as this one, please take care not to change direct quotations, as they must remain as they are in the original sources. Thanks! Powers ^T 01:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Wikilove

Slowking4 has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

while i don't normally applaud bot maintainers, i find your contributions invaluable.

If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Slowking4: †@1₭ 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yum, great! Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

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

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rcsprinter123 at 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rcsprinter123 at 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rcsprinter123 at 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London

In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered

Discussion report: Much ado about censorship

WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections

Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bad documentation

Another template for your bot to date-stamp, please: {{Bad documentation}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I shaped up that template a little. So far, the category doesn't even exist. One page uses it. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Added to the basic list. Just have to get the bot unblocked yet... Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

Didn't know about that. Sorry to hear. No reason to make dated subcategories though, if you ask me. Although dating the templates transclusions probably never hurts. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

references vs. reflist

This seems to be a matter of personal preference; it is my understanding that there is no consensus to change <references> to {{Reflist}} just for the sake of changing it. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations, which suggests either may be used and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 30#References template vs. reflist tag where the topic of changing from one to the other en masse was explored. Please remove this rule from your ruleset. –xeno^talk 14:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, as long as he doesn't make just that one edit, there is no reason he shouldn't make that edit alongside some other more useful edit. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is a reason not to change it: either is acceptable and the references list of the article should be left in the state it was found unless there is a good reason for the change, just as one doesn't change from variants of English or date styles without good reason. ~~<references /> is generally used when there are few references as the font size is larger; {{Reflist}} is generally used for articles with many references.~~ Both are acceptable and one should not use semi-automated tools to change one from one to the other without such editorial justification. –xeno^talk 14:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the difference is so minor, that I do not consider that a reason no to see them as interchangeable. In other words: I disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there has been some community discussion about this specific subject that I am not aware of? If so, I think you should have linked to it in your first post. Your words "it is my understanding", on the other hand, seem to indicate that this is only your personal opinion. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS, lead: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason." This is a general principle: we don't change BCE to BC or vice versa, we don't change a ref style to another, we don't add or remove the spaces inside section headers to suit our preference, and we don't change reflist to references/ or vice versa. More specifically, WP:CITEVAR gives "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." There is no consensus to change from reflist to references/ or the other way around. Fram (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The community discussed is linked above in my first post; there are likely others on the same subject. –xeno^talk 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps what I wrote above is out-of-date. Since Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 67#styling .3Creferences_.2F.3E like Reflist, <references /> and {{Reflist}} seem to have identical output. Therefore, such a change is purely cosmetic. –xeno^talk 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(editconflict with Fram) I didn't find that discussion conclusive, and WP:CITEVAR addresses citation style rather than their representation.

A good reason to change to {{Reflist}} is that the template is more flexible than the hardcoded <references/>. Both in the fact that it is a template, meaning that its functioning can be easily changed by the community, as also and prominently because it can be adapted for example with |2, |3, and other parameters. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The output of <references /> may also be changed by the community, as evidenced by the VPP thread I linked above. –xeno^talk 15:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Need I say that that process is a lot harder? Also, there is the argument of the parameters. And there is the "minimise mark-up" argument Rich mentioned below. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a 6:1 usage consensus in favour of {{Reflist}}. The font size issue while very important, for accessibility, and one I have brought up on numerous occasions, is the same with both methods, as the presentation is entirely in CSS. The discussion you refer to was started by one user who conflated (regularly) what is meant by footnote style (as in Harvard, APS, parenthetical etc.) with just about any feature of referencing one could imagine. The majority of the discussion is then about columns rather than templates vs mark-up. Guidelines quite rightly enjoin us to minimise mark-up in articles, and this is one small way of doing it. I'm sure you'll see that clarity of the edit page is a critical part of new editor retention. Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

How does changing references to reflist improve "clarity of the edit page"? Apart from that, if there are multiple accepted styles, we don't change the miority one to the majority one. Otherwise, you could also change BCE to BC everywhere (and hey, that's shorter as well!). Fram (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And indeed the only reason we don't is that there are vested interests. It has been usual to deprecate "anything with angle brackets" on article pages - with exceptions, of course. "references" has been one of those exceptions, mainly if not wholly because it did not invoke the evil "90%" size markup. Clarity clearly improves if we use a smaller set of mark-up. New users are not faced with trying to understand the difference between the two, and the canonical template mark-up is simpler and cleaner. It seems to me that the only constituency for not changing the remaining examples en passent is either a) those that have a personal reason to object to my edits or b) those that think some wiki-law is being broken and they have to defend it for the sake of the rule itself or c) those that have a psychological problem with things being changed at all. None, I regret to say, is a good reason. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Or those that believe that having only one possibility left isn't necessarily better for editors' understanding and ease. I have seen the same arguments used (by others) to defend the unification of all biographical infoboxes, and I have seen the same argument used (by you) to attempt to erase all template redirects. Perhaps there are people that have a psychological problem with change or diversity, just like there are people with a psychological problem with things being changed at all. Instead of arguing why people are opposing this change, wouldn't it be more useful to convincingly defend the reasons for the change? Why does this one have to go and why don't you e.g. replace "br/" at the same time? Do you think that the additional possibilities of reflist will be used in the foreseeable future on this article? (and why did you remove "as well" from that page? That sentence is now incorrect...) It's a purely cosmetic change: if you want to get rid of references/, get consensus first. Fram (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That was a perfectly good sentence. Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Before you changed it? Yes. After I posted here and you changed it again[37]? Yes. Inbetween? No... Fram (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The previous version used a tautological cliché. Not to say that it can't still be improved. Rich Farmbrough, 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

You are right that <references /> and {{Reflist}} display the same - my apologies for not keeping up with that change that was made to site-wide CSS in late 2010 - I have partially struck my comment above. So am I correct in understanding that such a change would not affect the rendered page? –xeno^talk 15:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So am I correct in understanding you aren't on a fishing trip? Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

All here are highly experienced editors, with me probably being the most junior of all. So I think we can do without the drama. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I was asking you to remove a rule from your ruleset for one reason, and found I was mistaken due to a relatively recent change. I am now suggesting that you remove it for another reason until demonstrable consensus exists for this cosmetic change. Since <references /> and {{Reflist}} now have the same output, a discussion should perhaps be held to determine whether the former should be deprecated in favour of the latter, but doing so in fait accompli manner is not an appropriate use of semi-automated tools. –xeno^talk 15:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also a standard arbcom principle about stylistic changes called Fait accompli, as some in the discussion will already be aware. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That ArbCom ruling applies only if there were intent to create a fait accompli situation. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot gage R.F.'s intent, but we can judge whether it has the effect of making a change without consensus - which it does, when applied widely. And we can gage whether it violates his editing restriction - which it also does. There is no requirement that we have to be able to read other editor's minds. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Do the statistics. The approximate half life of the crap version if only I am changing it is about 40 years. Hardly "fait accompli". <sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

WP:CITEVAR covers both the appearance of references and the method used to format them within wikitext. But since the appearance does not change, it would be a violation of R.F.'s editing restriction to be changing <references/> to {{reflist}}. Unilateral "deprecation" of existing syntax is one of the things that the editing restrictions are intended to avoid. In this case <references/> is not deprecated, it is perfectly acceptable syntax. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not deprecated, but it is inferior, for the several reasons mentioned above. So there is a good reason to make the change. I don't know about Rich's edit restrictions, but surely making a useful edit is not one of them? Debresser (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually "useful" is not a criterion in the restrictions, but making changes that do not change the appearance of the page, and are not built into AWB, is specifically forbidden. The reason that AWB does not make the replacement automatically is that there has never been a consensus that <references/> is any worse. Now that they have the same formatting the edit really has no use at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Carl you have been told a hundred times that's not the case. Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Not at all. There is a reason that AWB does not make this change automatically. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So are we now quorate or do we wait for MSGJ? Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Rich, if you want "drama free days" on your talk page [38], perhaps you should stick to the issues rather than introducing unnecessary drama? (I speak of your comments above regarding "psychological problems", "fishing trip", "quorate" - these add heat, rather than light to the discussion.) –xeno^talk 16:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For whatever little my opinion is worth I also agree that {{Reflist}} is better than <references/> too. I also agree that as long as the edit is done in conjunction with other more significant edits it should be allowed. --Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Edits by:

Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Edits by:

Rcsprinter123 at 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rcsprinter123 at 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rcsprinter123 at 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Another template

From this edit it follows that you didn't have Template:Refcleanup as a redirect of Template:Citation style. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly correct. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

About bird classification

Something to think about while you are blocked. Do you have any thoughts on using data in lists or websites to add details to bird pages with bots or semi-automatic tools. We have been discussing how to update many bird pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Birds#Repetitive_work. I hope to hear from you in about two weeks time. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was just reading the example "Birds of Zanzibar" at the RFC over lists. One I have acquired, prpeared and consumed a little something, I'll take a closer look. Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Good, you can use your talk page when blocked. Yes, it takes a methodical approach to do these tasks. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK pulling the genus author off Wikispecies does not look hard. The mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC, should we be noting monogeneric families? (E.G. Limpkin.) I presume IBC is authoritative enough to cite for this. The IOC spreadsheet is golddust - do you know the licensing of the notes? Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

I will transcribe your question to the WP bird talk page. Please indicate if you would like any further questions copied to there. Snowman (talk)

Is IBC a typo for IOC? What notes do you refer to? Would you agree that there are 903 monotypic bird genera (including monotypic families) listed in the IOC spreadsheet? The IOC taxonomy might be controversial for some birds. The HBW list (here) might be slightly different, because of controversies. Erudite ornithology editors might clean the list manually, if they know where the controversies are. Snowman (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

IBC=International Bird Collection =HBW. The IOC spreadsheet has a notes column - we could quote this if it is freely licensed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

I expect the notes would be copyrighted, but see with the others think on the WP Bird talk page. I used the shorter spreadsheet. A list of monotypic genera from IBC might be useful somewhere. Snowman (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick check on monotypic genrea, I get the same result. Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

That is reassuring. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to get a similar list of monotypic genera according to HBW. It looks like I will not be able to scrape their website for this list; perhaps, I have missed something. Do you have any observations on data scraping ibc.lynxeds.com for a list of monotypic genera? You say; "the mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC". This is for monotypic genera, not monotypic species. It looks difficult to me, their might be other websites that are easier to scrape. The HBW spreadsheet might be available - see discussion on the WP Birds talk page. Snowman (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I made a list from the HBW page last night, I'll post it here later. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

As well as redirect creation, interesting questions arise - is Acanthidops bairdi a typo for Acanthidops bairdii or vice versa? Is the Golden Bulbul two species or one? Etc. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for making the list. I suppose you could park it in a sub-page or remove it leaving it in the page history, if you wanted to. I have copied all 9,918 to a txt file on my PC. Interesting that the IOC list has well over 10,000. For clarity: is this list a list of every bird species on the HBW website? If so, then I could list the monotypic genera separately from it. I have not focused on the queries that you raised as yet. Did you come across a lot of listing problems? Some apparent listing anomalies might be due to taxonomy controversies, and some might be typos and other errors. The HWB list could be quite a lot different from the IOC list, partly because of the different functions of the lists. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not looked it up elsewhere, but Acanthidops bairdii is the name on the en Wiki species article. In brief outline, I would be interested to know how you made the HBW list. Snowman (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's where I got he "ii" spelling. Google gives 17k with "i" and 4.5k with "ii". I created the list by scanning all the family pages from HBW. Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Brilliant. How did you scan all those pages? I presumed that the list was alphabetical without any exceptions. Is that assumption correct. Do you agree with 929 monotypic genera according to HBW? I got a perl script to grab the genus name one line and compare it with the genus name in the line above and below. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I get 923/926

might be causing some confusion. Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

IUCN has 10029 aves species. Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Well spotted. I think that they are the only ones listed like that on the full list. I have got all four on my derived list, so subtracting four, I get 925, which still is not the same as yours. What is "923/926"? I am expecting your count to be an integer not a range. I am subtracting one more, because Marsh Antwren (Stymphalornis acutirostris) might not be monotypic if there is a new Stymphalornis sp in that genus. That leaves 924. If there is a difference I could use a list comparer. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is worth doing a monotypic genus list for IUCN. Can you get there birds as a list? Snowman (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I have not made a list, but merely counted them. The number depends on the rule one uses. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Can you get the IUCN url (with the page number) and the corresponding species? Doing something with these would be useful for WP Birds. I do not think I could fix the IUCN links in the cite references of the on bird pages quickly, so I hope that you will be able to help and liaise with the others soon. Snowman (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have requested an export of the full AVES search from IUCN. This should provide all the desired information. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Page move

Hello. When you moved Template:Infobox UK Legislation to Template:Infobox UK legislation, you did not move its talk page, Template talk:Infobox UK Legislation with it. I assume that this was a mistake. I am unable to fix it myself because the target page Template talk:Infobox UK legislation has a page history, and it does not appear to be possible to request the move of a talk page at Wikipedia:Requested Moves, unless I have misunderstood the instructions there. James500 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Violation of edit restriction

In this edit [39] you changed "Infobox Military Unit" to "Infobox military unit". This is not listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects and is thus a violation of your editing restriction. Additional examples of this sort of violation are [40] [41]

In the same edit you changed "portal" to "Portal". AWB does not change the capitalization of first letters of templates, so this is also a violation of your editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, in these edits you changed <references/> to {{reflist}}. You just marked for archiving a discussion on your talk page admonishing you to avoid doing this. As it is not built into AWB and does not affect the rendered page, it is also a violation of your editing restriction. [42] [43] [44] [45]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, Looks like you better reset the counter back to 0 Rich!. I didn't look through every edit example but I don't see a problem with the first four provided that other more significant edits are done at the same time. That's just me personally though and my opinions don't usually carry much weight. --Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no exception in these edit restrictions for edits done at the same time. The changes I mentioned are simply forbidden outright. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this is surely a case of "thou dost complain too much" – not entirely inconsequential changes bundled with at least one consequential change. As to the 'reflist' change, I suggest:
(/(References ?==\n)[\n\s]*(?:\{\{[Rr]eflist\}\}|<references\/>)/g, '$1{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}') would make the change 'consequential' --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If the change was made consequential, it would violate WP:CITEVAR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll let it pass until something actually dramatic happens. Getting these kinds of messages after a 12 hour work day followed by 6 hours volunteering is more pathetic than dramatic. Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

<Sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Carl, I am with Kumikio on this one. An editor is allowed to make cosmetic changes, even with automated tools, as long as they are made alongside some more significant edit. If this wasn't specified in those edit restrictions you mention, then such was their intend, no doubt. Debresser (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the intent was not to allow Rich to make whatever unnecessary/disputed cosmetic changes he feels like as long as he is making some significant edit - it was to prohibit Rich from making cosmetic changes of any kind unless they were built into AWB or had demonstrable consensus. –xeno^talk 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(Otherwise, no restriction would be needed at all because cosmetic changes on their own are already prohibited by AWB's rules of use. It would be like an editing restriction prohibiting vandalism - pointless.) –xeno^talk 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, do you still feel sufficiently uninvolved as an administrator to block for these sorts of violations? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that further violations should be reported to a noticeboard for discussion so that any block based on the editing restrictions cannot simply be unilaterally overturned. –xeno^talk 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at AN was just archived, and the editing restrictions were not removed. So it is not clear what another discussion immediately after that one would accomplish. At the same time Elen of the Roads indicated she might be willing to handle enforcement of the restriction. I will ping her again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And these changes have demonstrable consensus. Which is why only a select few object to them. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations indicates that <references /> and {{Reflist}} are interchangeable. I do not see demonstrable consensus that the former should always be replaced by the latter. Nor is there any consensus that template should always have their first letter capitalized, this is simply a change that you make because YOULIKEIT. –xeno^talk 14:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS says to minimise markup. Consensus. Usage is in favour of the template 6:1. Consensus. When I consolidated several portal boxes into one it is a standard change for which there is consensus. For capitalisation of infobox names there is consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Can you provide some links to back that up? For example, where is the guideline, policy, MOS page, or whatever that describes a consensus on how to capitalize template calls? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Usage numbers aren't really that compelling when we both know the usage numbers are where they are because you have been doing these edits for months or years. So the usage numbers are where they are at because you engineered that situation. –xeno^talk 14:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We also have (I'm sure) a preponderance of US spelling over UK spelling, but that does not mean there is a consensus to change one to the other. The general rule is that optional stylistic things should be left alone unless there is a specific consensus to change them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not-isomorphic. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

You over-estimate me. I have only made 1% of the edits in en:. I will crunch some numbers this evening though. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

I analyse 110 Gb of diffs (roughly 1% of the total) and found 9 cases where I had made such a change. Sine the total number of instances is about 1.4 million, accusations of fait accompli would appear to be as empty as the rest of them. Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

My biggest problem in all this is that if Rich's edits are so bad then why is it the same 4 or 5 editors crying wolf every time. I agree that some of the edits in the past were unnecessary and I also support the blocks due to the actualy errors that were introduced breaking certain articles. But when he bundles the inconsequential edits in with other more meaningful ones I don't think there is a problem. Even if there are 4 or 5 editors who are adminsn and self professed guardians of the Wiki that say other wise it doesn't make it against consensus. Additionally, by and large I think there is consensus for most of the changes with the exception of the same 4 or 5 editors. As for the UK to US spelling thats mixing apples and oranges into an already problematic discussion so lets try and stay on point. I also think arguments of edit volume are mostly kinda stupid BTW. Yes he did some edits that some thought to be pointless, so what, with the exception of the changes that actually broke the article the changes arguably made the article better, incrementally a little at a time. Just because one editor spends more time editing and less time discussing shouldn't be used as a blunt instrument in which to bludgeon them verbally! If he actually makles errors or does truly fruitless edits alone thats one thing but badgering him for this is nonsense and a waste of 99.99998% of the communities time. --Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, the process of improving AWB is so bureaucratic and tedious. They still disconnect after some 15 seconds of idle time, even though that makes using it almost impossible, and many editors (!) have expressed their strongest feelings about it. Now, after that you can hardly expect anybody to take AWB as a standard. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

AWB has a large collection of "general fixes". Since the problem is R.F. making up his own general fixes without broader consensus, using AWB as a standard for which general fixes have consensus makes some sense. Also, the AWB devs try to incorporate as many useful changes as consensus will allow, so if a change is not well enough supported to be in AWB, it is hard to justify making it on a semi-auto basis over large numbers of articles. A history of doing that is what led to the current restriction that R.F. is not allowed to make these changes at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't support that argument and heres why. AWB is used by a lot of projects besides Wikipedia and the logic AWB must also take into account these other projects. There have been plenty of times when the devs wanted to make a change for the betterment of WP but couldn't because they had to account for the other projects and sister wikis. Also, bare in mind that several bots use AWB and the edits they perform are not "built in". Using myself as an example also, I do a lot of edits that aren't built into AWB (at least not yet) such as rearranging sections (see also goes above References, external links and Further reading) based on the guidelines in the MOS. I also do this based on the MOS guidelines for talk pages. Many, many other editors also have logic they do thats not part of AWB. Before you argue that these limits are because of his edit restriction, which may be true, that is not how you phrased it above and the tone above sets a bad precedent to be used in future arguments above what kinds of edits can be done in AWB for all editors. So as I mentioned above, if he is careless andn breaks something fine, if he goes willinilly making changes for spacing and casing alone that seems to be so aggravating to some users fine, but when he is incoporating these insignificant changes with others that are more meaningful that should allowed. Otherwise these minor changes that you hate so much will stay on the article forever. --Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone does something with an AWB bot that is not built in, they need to have explicit bot approval for it. If someone manually reviews their AWB edits, they can do many things that are not built in, if they have consensus. But R.F. is under a special editing restriction that does not allow him to do even as many things as a normal AWB operator would be able to do. In particular he is not permitted to make the changes I linked in the first post of this thread. This section is not about whether to lift the editing restriction, which is what you seem to be getting towards with language like "should". The restriction is in place, and the point of this section was to document that it was violated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO the point of the restriction was to stop him from doing these edits individually and to get him to pay closer attention to the logic so pages don't get broken. Or am I missing the point. And I'm not asking for the restriction to be lifted or limited I don't see these as a problem since there being done with other edits is all and there are quite a few of us that are getting a little tired of the little boy who cried wolf act that goes on here every couple days. If you would have brought a bunch of cases where he was breaking pages and doing inconsequential edits (like removing blank spaces) I woudln't have bothered to comment at all and simply gone about my merry way as I have done in the past on such occassions. This just isn't one of those times. --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See Xeno's comment above dated 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking Rich for this IMO is utterly useless and I do not believe is in the spirit of the restriction. I personally think that creating this discussion over such petty things is more mischievous than the edits performed. I find it a little irritating frankly that the same users pull these shenanigans over and over. If he does something truly grievous like breaking articles then ok but otherwise your just wasting our time with this discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Between Chaos and Creation (film)

Hello, Rich Farmbrough, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Between Chaos and Creation (film) whether the article Between Chaos and Creation (film) should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Between Chaos and Creation (film), which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

References to IUCN on bird pages

See discussion at Template talk:IUCN and on WP bird talk page. These links have plagued the WP Birds project for a number of years. I guess that it would need scraping the website. Any thoughts. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

See above section: I have the data, Just need to firm up exactly what is needed - maybe some thinking time would be good. Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Could you please elaborate on your answer in this RFC. It seems it is interpreted differently by me and User:Gerardw. Thanks. — Christoph Päper 08:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted your changes to Template:Sockpuppet category

I have reverted your changes to Template:Sockpuppet category, since it created errors on lots of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets pages, i.e. every page with a user name longer than about 15 characters. E.g. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of We had wheels on toast in the freezing rain started with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of We had wheels omax index is 50 for str_sub=Suspected sock puppets of <span id="We had wheels omax index is 50 for str_sub" and so on, and was listed on Category:Pages with incorrect formatting templates use, which has at the time of writing still 580 pages, or more than one out of ten pages from the category. Fram (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I thought of that, and probably would have investigated in more detail, but I had all sorts of other stuff going on onmy talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

You had plenty of time to do all kinds of other stuff, like creating dozens of categories (some of which had this problem, by the way), so that's hardly an excuse to create errors on hundreds of cat pages for nearly a day. If you don't have the time to check your changes more thoroughly, don't make them. Fram (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to automated edits

We've got to find some way to resolve this. You're driving people mad, and they seem to be driving you mad. Can you stop doing some of the stuff that drives them mad, so you can carry on doing useful stuff? There was a lot of support for taking some sort of action to stop you making automated edits, and the final terms are actually milder than those supported by a lot of people.

Will you agree to the following

run the script off another account, not your main account.
not fix things that are not broken. No changing capitalisations and redirects unless they are actually causing something not to work. No fiddling with non-visible whitespace. Changing them otherwise is mere cushion-straightening, and the only tolerable error rate is zero, something you have never achieved.
and on that subject, do more error checking. Apologies, I know you probably already do some, but believe it or not I run a technical team, and they only ever error check for the errors they can think of. We always also get three or four lasses in the call centre to check the output - you'll be surprised what they spot. Obviously you don't have that luxury, but there does seem to be a consistent if low error rate in your scripted edits.
get a clear approval before using reprogrammed AWB, because the consensus seems to be that you need to do that. If you can get clear approval to do a task, it will get people off your back.

If you can't agree to these, then as the restrictions were as far as I can see legitimately imposed after proper and thorough discussions, then the consequences listed can legitimately be applied.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, we're talking a different language here. Well several different languages. It makes it hard to know where to start.

First off my last 153 edits (not counting this one) have been standard Firefox edits, I'm scarcely touching AWB, because, yes, the illegitimi are carborunduming me somewhat. Before that there's two - count them - AWB edits on the 6th December.

Secondly you miss the fact that, even if we allow that the ER is binding (I worked with RD-232 on the basis that it was, to keep the mob off my back, because he was actually pretty sane, and I add, worked successfully - except when Fram kept jumping in the middle of conversations shouting "look look!") then 99% of the changes you mention are allowable - which is why it is so ludicrous to be opposed on thing like "we MUST preserve {{tocright}}" and "We must keep confusing markup". Let me stress again it's pretty much the Fram and CBM show, here, with a little Xeno thrown in from time to time.

Thirdly I am not clear what you mean by a "reprogrammed AWB." The fact is that I never even downloaded the source for AWB until CBM basically forced me to do so, to remove something that he doesn't like. It is frustrating that these tall tales are being put about - I even came across someone on IRC calumniating me. Of course its funny as well, but it does fit in nicely with the "signs of mobbing" that, I think it was, Hans Adler recently linked to.

And finally AWB is not automated edits.

On the matter of the alleged ER, it was brought about by a totally crazy discussion, arising from some really shameful behaviour on the part of several editors, and mobbing on AN/I. At one point I left simple queries on the pages of 18 editors who had chipped in with "ban him!" type comments, to the effect "On AN/I you said X, can I ask what your reason for this was?" Only one had the decency to respond, and that one withdrew their comment from AN.I and apologised. Another editor adduced these gentle enquiries as further proof of my diabolical nature. It was against this sort of background that I was initially willing to work with R2-D2 who I believed had actually put some effort into understanding the dispute, although his conclusion was completely wrong. It turned out later that he had simply cut and pasted the poorly thought out text someone else had posted. For which there was no consensus. The salient matter had all already been dealt with, in the first brou-ha-ha. He has now retired, having seen through the type of posturing and mobbing that was going on in those AN/I disputes. Unfortunately he has left me with two unilaterally imposed ERs, and a comics addict, a mathematician and a bureaucrat still hanging around my talk page making a nuisance of themselves.

It is fairly clear to the meanest intelligence that this is no longer about the encyclopedia as far as they are concerned. Fram reverts my edits, takes me to every forum he can think of, deletes articles and redirects, wheel wars, opposes everything I post where he can and generally makes a nuisance of himself. CBM has for years been doing inane reverts of users, edit warring and breaking templates, and yet he has the cheek to say I am "wasting edits". And although Xeno and CBM have some technical competence, they still are quite happy to go off half-cocked (though Xeno has the grace to apologise) on matters they don't understand. Fram - technically - just doesn't get it. And that I think is the most annoying part. It's all very well to politely point out an error on a subject where one is knowledgeable, but a lot of the criticism is over things that I know about and Fram doesn't. And it's not even worded in any way other than a command. I have long ago given up trying to teach Fram anything, which is a sad sate of affairs. I then asked him not to interact with me, several times. He has steadfastly refused.

And in case you still think, as you expressed on Arbcom (which comments still mystify me, both as to why you believed them and why you thought that was a good place to enunciate them) that I have "poor customer skills" don't forget that I had several years of frequent questions, sometimes very angry as to why "You have tagged my article." when the bot had simply dated the tags.

So really there is a lot more to this than just some nut who likes articles to look good. These are carefully thought out improvements, most of which are now built into AWB and hence "permissible". The fact that I don't feel like rolling over and dying under the bullying tactics that I have seen over that last year or so, I think should be considered commendable rather than otherwise.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Oh and just a postscriptum, "run the script off another account" among other things leads me to suppose that there is off-wiki lobbying going on here. I prefer to keep as much as possible in the light of day, and would appreciate knowing if this is the case. Rich Farmbrough, 10:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

The reason I brought this up is that creating another account for larger projects is something I was bullied into doing sometime ago, it was then used as a stick to beat me (or sock to beat me - think Death Wish perhaps). So I wondered where the meme had come from. Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Couple of immediate points. First, no-one is off-wiki lobbying *me*. Secondly, a lot of the objections seem to be related to introducing errors in the attempt to fix an error. This is a problem for automated edits obviously. If you do it with manual errors, while other editors may request that you be more careful, I know that I myself keep two Wikignomes permanently employed running round fixing up my bad code, failure to complete clerking, lack of signage etc, so I don't feel I can say a word about it.

There is some discussion on my talkpage, but you can read that anyway, and in fact I'd be interested if you'd read Carl's points here, and respond if you feel led in either location. I suspect people use the old/wrong/redirect names because (a) they remember them, (b) they keep a subpage of code snippets, or (c) they cut and paste out of an existing article that works the way they want, rather than go to the template documentation. I've b0rked a good many templates that way, so have learned my lesson and always look at the documentation, but if all the versions work, and the end user never sees the code, there really is no point in changing it. I agree that fixing bad code (FrontPage's approximations of html, or the junk generated by using the Macro Recorder to create your VBA), cleaning up code that the developer stopped looking at as soon as it worked (leaving 15 commented out iterations behind), documenting undocumented code, etc are all important activities. But if I can use {{TOCright}} or {{TOC right}} and get the same effect, it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll address Carl's point on your talk page to avoid muddying the debate here.

Well I'm certainly pleased about the first point, it keeps thing simpler.

The second is undoubtedly correct, people probably use all these methods to apply templates. And two more are typos and short-cuts. Indeed I extensively used {{wfy}} in the sure and certain knowledge that it would be replaced by something meaningful when it was dated. However the conclusion does not follow - for a whole bunch of reasons. Firstly we want to provide a simple interface to users, when we have some hundreds of clean-up templates and some thousands of redirects it is much easier to lean the smaller set than the larger. Moreover if we consistently use spaces in template names, and consistently use sentence case we really do lighten the cognitive load. Secondly not all redirects are benign, {{Fact}} was changed to {{Citation needed}} because the first was too bitey - it says, more or less, "Liar!", there were redirects to different templates that differed only by a space or a capital letter, there are redirects that are misleading. Because I approached this on a very gentle incremental approach, rather than making runs just to replace template redirects, this is something the community was (an is, despite a recent attempt to derail consensus) happy with. There is no problem with many hundreds of redirect replacements. There's a couple, mainly done by hand that have been picked on. This is where my patience runs thin, instead of coming and saying "Hey Infobox blah isn't on the AWB list, or better, adding it a WP:POINT message is left on my talk page with very condescending instructions "not to do it again".

In fact really WP:POINT is the crux of what Fram and CBM are doing. Really if you saw I had changed, in the course of another spelling correction edit {{Infobox UK Legislation}} to {{Infobox UK legislation}} would you go and look through a long list of allowed and almost identical infoboxes, then come back here and post that I was in violation of editing restrictions? It passes the quack test as pointy behaviour, and it's only because I cut them extra slack, being mathematicians and comics addicts, that I haven't classified it this way before.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Note: to highlight the lunacy, examine this edit by Fram where he fixes a date (substantive edit), removes un-needed white space, changes {{cn}} to {{Citation needed}} and changes a hyphen to an en-dash. Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Yes, I use standard AWB changes while making substantive changes. You are allowed to do the same. Those times that I complained about an edit you made, and it turned out to be standard AWB, I acknowledged my mistake and stopped complaining about you making that kind of edit. So what "lunacy" are you actually highlighting? That I use AWB as intended and without problems? If you do the same, you won't hear anything from me. Fram (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand that while to you that type of edit is completely different in nature from replacing "tocright" with "TOC right" while fixing a spelling error, to the vast majority of sane, technically literate Wikipedians the two are basically indistinguishable. Indeed some of the things Elen asked me to agree to stop doing are precisely things that you do - that are "allowed". And even my three wise monkeys have got it wrong, as you comment above. So if no-one can tell the difference between an allowed change, and a disallowed one, without going off and doing tests, then really there must be something wrong if someone is proposing blocks based on this - or even taking any notice of it at all. Rich Farmbrough, 11:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Dear Elen of the Roads and Rich. I understand that I am only a simple editor, but I hope my two cents will help here. I know Rich here on Wikipedia from working together on several occasions. I mention this to make the point that Rich is an approachable and friendly editor, the point of which will become clear soon enough. In general we share the same opinions as to the desirableness of having pages (articles, templates and categories foremost) look technically elegant, well-ordered and understandable. This I add to explain that my "defending" him here and in other sections above is not without a personal interest. All the same, I'd like to remind Rich that I am waiting for him to continue the discussion above on the subject of dating format templates (where we seem to disagree).

I'd like to make a few observations, related some more some less to the issue.

Some editors do more thorough test than others before saving the page. This is a matter which depends on the editor's character. I, for example, often reread what I wrote only after saving, and then fix typos, etc. This is not ideal, but that is the way I work. Perhaps the same is true in a certain measure for Rich.

On this same subject I'd like to make another two observations

There is a Dutch saying that wherever people work, flints fly. Meaning that the laws of statistics dictate that the more one works, the more one errs. In view of the large number of edits Rich makes, being the most active editor on Wikipedia, it is only normal that he makes a lot of errors.
Rich is very conscientious about replying to messages on his talkpage, and replies seriously to any and all notifications of errors made by him (in automated as well as semi-automated and hand-made edits).

And two more general comments

I for one disagree with the editing restriction against Rich. Moreover, I don't think there is any justification for such a restriction. Especially in view of the way this restriction came about, if we may take Rich's word for it.
As to the level of technical versatility of the editors involved I have no opinion. I did notice that Fram's posts here are sometimes less than detached. Unfortunately, even Rich sometimes gets irritated by the many critical comments here from a select group of editors, and that also doesn't help. Personally, I am a fan of the English sense of humor, and would like to use this occasion to thank Rich for "a comics addict, a mathematician and a bureaucrat". With all due respect, of course, for said editors. 21:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In defence of Fram

Contrary to what Rich Farmbrough states above, all I usually do is point out errors he makes, and do it here, not on noticeboards. In those cases where I was mistaken, I acknowledged this. I don't drag Rich Farmbrough to noticeboards for every edit I don't like, I don't post here every time he changes references/ to reflist, I don't post here even for every mistake he makes and I corrects. I only drag him to noticeboards when he makes a lot of errors and refuses to correct them or otherwise creates serious problems or seriously misuses tools. In nearly every case where I started a thread on a noticeboard, general (not unanimous) agreement was that there indeed was a problem with his edits, and some corrective action was taken. Only the ArbCom case, which I started in the hope of getting more eyes on this and putting this to rest, was rejected, but with a majority of arbitrators willing to take on the case (which doesn't mean that they saw a problem with Rich Farmbrough's edits of course). Apart from that, in most cases outside review of my actions resulted in agreement with me and disagreement with Rich. E.g. he recently complained about my deletions of some improbable redirects he made. To test this, I tagged three redirects he created for speedy deletion, and all three were deleted, by three different, uninvolved admins: Template:Jewish Encylopedia, Iran (Islamic Republic of ), and Bolivia (Plurinational State of ). Please also take a lok at other things I noted here, or things I reverted: I don't believe that is a case of me not getting things on a technical level, it's just Rich Farmbrough being careless (or stubborn or whatever other reason he has to continually create so many errors). Fram (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows CSD is broken. The rest is observer bias and mobbing behaviour. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

I also see here some more unfounded accusations "when he makes a lot of errors and refuses to correct them"- I have never refused to correct errors I make. For example I recently went through 18,000 edits checking for a particular error, that occurred on maybe 4 or 5 pages. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

"More" unfounded accusations? Please list the ones I haven't provided evidence for, or acknowledged that I was wrong. For this one, an example would be User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011Oct#Please don't change correct links to redirects (or worse, to redlinks), don't "correct" quotes, and don't remove the end of lines, where you continue to create the exact same error I posted about repeatedly, or with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Archive 2#Cite DNB and the previous WP:AN section (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction about this, where even after I pointed out the pages with errors (content, cats, wikilinks, ...), you didn't correct them (you claimed you did, but a simple search showed that even errors I pointed out as examples weren't corrected, never mind the other similar ones). Or take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2011#Automated creation of incorrect categories, one of these discussions which you feel lead to unwarranted editing restrictions; you continue creating the same problems while multiple editors explain why they are problems and clean up after you, until you finally get blocked. Fram (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everclear_%28album%29&diff=next&oldid=457308794 for example makes your first example moot.

And I never claimed not to make errors, moreover not only did I not refuse to clean up errors, I often create a list of similar errors and fix them as the same time. For example I fixed a number of incorrectly capitalised WSOP headers that other people had created.

And I'm not having a diff war with you over this, you need only find one example where I agreed something was an error and said "I'm not fixing it". Which if course you won't because that is not the type of person I am, despite your pathetic attempts to paint me otherwise.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

Of course you are not having a diff war, you hardly ever provide diffs for your accusations (see e.g. the Betacommand 3 case, or the rejected Arbcom case about you). And I'm not talking about what you "say", I'm talking about what you "do". I have also "corrected" your section header above, since making it a level 2 hader removes the context (the section starts with "Contrary to what Rich Farmbrough states above", which can become meaningless once you start archiving here). Fram (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't provide diffs, because its a waste of my time, I know it's true and so do you. Whether you refuse to admit it to yourself or just to others I can't tell, nor does it greatly matter. The fact is I have never refused to correct a genuine error, nor would I. Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

I don't believe that it is true at all, please don't pretend to know what I think. All I see is time and again you are asserting things and making accusations, and time and again you refuse to back them up with diffs when requested to do so. This makes them baseless accusations and personal attacks. Fram (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I re-read some of the stuff you point to, including a lot of your ranting and demands for blocks and other general stirring, and remembered just how bad your interactions have been. I have really run out of good faith with you. Unless you can find an example of me refusing to fix agreed mistakes, then please depart this thread, and preferably this page and the project, which you are not a net benefit to. Rich Farmbrough, 11:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Rich. Please reflect on what you're saying. There are people who perhaps feel the above statement precisely reflects your own behaviour. Regardless of whether that's the case or not, your account is the one that has been subject to editing restricts and blocks, not anyone else's account. —Sladen (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reflected on it. And I nearly came back and retracted it. I even thought perhaps I should suggest some project that I should work with Fram on, so we could diffuse the tension. But I am human, and to be frank, there is nothing that Fram could do to redeem himself in my eyes, it has gone far beyond that. That's not to say I don't understand, partially, Fram's point of view. I don't say that he is without ability. However he has a talent for rubbing people up the wrong way, he has no grasp of the big picture, and has been pestering me for over a year. The fact that some of his bug reports are correct and even significant no longer matters. I just don't want to see his name. Had he stuck only to real errors, been polite, non judgemental and also listened to my responses, I would have welcomed his comments, as indeed I did at first. It is, now, too late for that. Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Reconstructing how we got here: our interactions were few and far between, until he started editing some (protected and unprotected) templates to remove cats he didn't like, deleted them out of process, and was very dismissive and uncivil about anyone and anything opposing him, which lead to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010. Note that only a few weeks before, there was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive643#Rich Farmbrough and unnecessary capitalization changes, which basically is a prime example of most RF discussions since, and which wasn't started by me (or any of his other current regular posters), but by totally different people. What have we there: "totally unnecessary capitalization changes", "He said that he fixed the problem, but a day later, it was back." (anyone wanted evidence of the "refuses to fix problems?" statement), "Communication with the bot owner is going to be exceedlingly hard,", "RF has a long history of controversial mass-actions and refusing to discuss them or even consider that anybody else might possibly be right. ", "Since RF can't now (and before the block, seemingly wouldn't) change this behaviour," "In my experience the user in question is unfit to be combining adminship and botting. ", and so on and so on. All this without my prompting or interference. Perhaps, just perhaps, the problem is with you? Fram (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Even then you were there to be a member of the mob. As I have repeatedly acknowledged, blanking my talk page, simply because some editors though it was funny to jump onto every thread and turn it into a battleground was a mistake. Doing it without a clear explanation of what was happening, from some misplaced desire not create conflict with said editors even more so. Although you may have only started being disruptive at that point, it didn't take more than a few days until you were making a nuisance of yourself on BRFAs and elsewhere. Anyway.. . enough time wasted on you already. Rich Farmbrough, 14:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC).

Let me also state that I have not contacted anyone about this, either on or off-wiki. I don't email other users, I don't use IRC, all my wiki-related things are conducted on Wikipedia and free for everyone to check. Fram (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Singles category

Template:Singles category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Please don't protect templates before they are even in use anywhere, like you did with Template:Page name sub. Fram (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How about you stop deleting useful content for a few weeks, then we talk? Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Examples? Fram (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Example where you wheel-warred is a good start. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

So, as I expected, none. Anyway, problems you preceive with my editing are no excuse for problems with your editing (and vice versa, of course)... Fram (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, in human relations, your behaviour does impact on whether I want to respond to what you say, whether I care about it, and whether I even want to see your sig on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

In defence of Fram

Contrary to what Rich Farmbrough states above, all I usually do is point out errors he makes, and do it here, not on noticeboards. In those cases where I was mistaken, I acknowledged this. I don't drag Rich Farmbrough to noticeboards for every edit I don't like, I don't post here every time he changes references/ to reflist, I don't post here even for every mistake he makes and I corrects. I only drag him to noticeboards when he makes a lot of errors and refuses to correct them or otherwise creates serious problems or seriously misuses tools. In nearly every case where I started a thread on a noticeboard, general (not unanimous) agreement was that there indeed was a problem with his edits, and some corrective action was taken. Only the ArbCom case, which I started in the hope of getting more eyes on this and putting this to rest, was rejected, but with a majority of arbitrators willing to take on the case (which doesn't mean that they saw a problem with Rich Farmbrough's edits of course). Apart from that, in most cases outside review of my actions resulted in agreement with me and disagreement with Rich. E.g. he recently complained about my deletions of some improbable redirects he made. To test this, I tagged three redirects he created for speedy deletion, and all three were deleted, by three different, uninvolved admins: Template:Jewish Encylopedia, Iran (Islamic Republic of ), and Bolivia (Plurinational State of ). Please also take a lok at other things I noted here, or things I reverted: I don't believe that is a case of me not getting things on a technical level, it's just Rich Farmbrough being careless (or stubborn or whatever other reason he has to continually create so many errors). Fram (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows CSD is broken. The rest is observer bias and mobbing behaviour. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

I also see here some more unfounded accusations "when he makes a lot of errors and refuses to correct them"- I have never refused to correct errors I make. For example I recently went through 18,000 edits checking for a particular error, that occurred on maybe 4 or 5 pages. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

"More" unfounded accusations? Please list the ones I haven't provided evidence for, or acknowledged that I was wrong. For this one, an example would be User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011Oct#Please don't change correct links to redirects (or worse, to redlinks), don't "correct" quotes, and don't remove the end of lines, where you continue to create the exact same error I posted about repeatedly, or with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Archive 2#Cite DNB and the previous WP:AN section (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction about this, where even after I pointed out the pages with errors (content, cats, wikilinks, ...), you didn't correct them (you claimed you did, but a simple search showed that even errors I pointed out as examples weren't corrected, never mind the other similar ones). Or take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2011#Automated creation of incorrect categories, one of these discussions which you feel lead to unwarranted editing restrictions; you continue creating the same problems while multiple editors explain why they are problems and clean up after you, until you finally get blocked. Fram (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everclear_%28album%29&diff=next&oldid=457308794 for example makes your first example moot.