User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011 November

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sad...

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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).[reply]

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

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

FYI

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hello

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Femto Bot error

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]... it doesn't look like this would ever stop. Fram (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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	33
August 2009	31
September 2009	35
October 2009	39
November 2009	36
December 2009	38
January 2010	41
February 2010	41
March 2010	40
April 2010	42
May 2010	45
June 2010	44
July 2010	43
August 2010	46
September 2010	51
October 2010	52
November 2010	56
December 2010	55
January 2011	55
February 2011	55
March 2011	52
April 2011	49
May 2011	55
June 2011	57
July 2011	58
August 2011	55
September 2011	60
October 2011	63
November 2011	59
December 2011	64
January 2012	63
February 2012	64
March 2012	61
April 2012	60
May 2012	61
June 2012	60
July 2012	63
August 2012	63
September 2012	64
October 2012	62
November 2012	62
December 2012	67
January 2013	65
February 2013	69
March 2013	68
April 2013	69
May 2013	68
June 2013	70
July 2013	67
August 2013	69
September 2013	65
October 2013	73
November 2013	71
December 2013	73
January 2014	72
February 2014	67
March 2014	69
April 2014	70
May 2014	70
June 2014	68
July 2014	71
August 2014	71
September 2014	67
October 2014	74
November 2014	68
December 2014	66
January 2015	73
February 2015	70
March 2015	73
April 2015	69
May 2015	71
June 2015	74
July 2015	69
August 2015	72
September 2015	72
October 2015	70
November 2015	78
December 2015	71
January 2016	73
February 2016	76
March 2016	77
April 2016	79
May 2016	79
June 2016	78
July 2016	74
August 2016	79
September 2016	75
October 2016	77
November 2016	76
December 2016	80
January 2017	81
February 2017	76
March 2017	86
April 2017	80
May 2017	80
June 2017	80
July 2017	95
August 2017	85
September 2017	92
October 2017	94
November 2017	89
December 2017	93
January 2018	91
February 2018	91
March 2018	89
April 2018	92
May 2018	93
June 2018	95
July 2018	97
August 2018	96
September 2018	100
October 2018	101
November 2018	94
December 2018	97
January 2019	101
February 2019	93
March 2019	103
April 2019	100
May 2019	108
June 2019	98
July 2019	102
August 2019	103
September 2019	103
October 2019	100
November 2019	103
December 2019	98
January 2020	99
February 2020	104
March 2020	112
April 2020	111
May 2020	112
June 2020	114
July 2020	109
August 2020	113
September 2020	116
October 2020	116
November 2020	115
December 2020	103
January 2021	111
February 2021	106
March 2021	107
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	121
August 2022	125
September 2022	122
October 2022	124
November 2022	125
December 2022	122
January 2023	122
February 2023	124
March 2023	125
April 2023	126
May 2023	124
June 2023	119
July 2023	121
August 2023	130
September 2023	121
October 2023	128
November 2023	124
December 2023	132
January 2024	134
February 2024	131
March 2024	136
April 2024	128
May 2024	129
June 2024	140
July 2024	140
August 2024	133
September 2024	136
October 2024	148
November 2024	193
Undated articles	0

All articles

16,727

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not to mention the immediately preceding edit tries to transclude a template that does not exist [7]. –xeno^talk 17:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thanks Rich for clearifying the policy.

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

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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

{{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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] –xeno^talk 16:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request

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

How

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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.[reply]

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

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.[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Rcsprinter123 at 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Before you changed it? Yes. After I posted here and you changed it again[17]? Yes. Inbetween? No... Fram (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Rich, if you want "drama free days" on your talk page [18], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]