Template: A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag.. *
Edits by:
Last edit by
BAGGER was by 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)
Template: A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag.. *
Edits by:
Last edit by
BAGGER was by 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)
Template: . *
Edits by:
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)
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)
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)
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)
In this edit [1] 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 [2] [3]
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. [4] [5] [6] [7]. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
(/(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
{{
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.{{
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".{{
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.{{
cn}}
to {{
Citation needed}}
and changes a hyphen to an en-dash.
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC).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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I let that discussion at
WP:AN run itself into the ground, in the benighted hope that you would stop making the edits that are driving people mad. However, it appears that like everyone ele who runs bots (remember I'm on a committee with Xeno and Coren) you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum. (remove dismal failure at humour. Just call me
Jeremy Clarkson ) Or at the very least, you can't figure why what you do is annoying people. So it falls to me,
Captain Swing the
Luddite to remind you that
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). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged. Sanction imposed per this AN discussion, to be enforced by escalating blocks
Now you're an intelligent man, and it shouldn't come to this. So I want you to take all the code out of whatever instrument of the Devil it is that you use, that does things like this and changes <references/> to {{reflist}}, and switch cases the first letter of template names, and stuff like that. Because the next time that someone tells me that you have done it again, I will block you in the following sequence - 24hrs (in case you thought I wasn't serious), 1 week, 1 month, 1 year. And that would not be a good thing. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
Tracklist}}
is a redirect to {{
Track listing}}
, "Track listing" is the preferred name for the section and the template follows suite. There is no benefit in having several versions of the template name in articles, those of us who speak languages other than Python prefer spaces between our words. Asking users (implicity) to remember that the section has one title and the template another is unnecessary cognitive load.
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC).One more example. This edit [14] replaced the names of several templates and removed "example.jpg". But why was "example.jpg" there in the first place? The vandalism on the page - adding the name "Kailyn" - stands out both because it is in bold and because it is in a "see also" section but not linked. It's very odd to remove the image but not remove the rest of the vandalism. It is also not clear how the edit summary "copyedit" is applicable to that edit; cf. copyediting. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
He simply continues though, e.g. replacing here the deliberate and correct McCartney-Lennon with the reverse Lennon–McCartney. This one as well was not necessary at all. Fram ( talk) 15:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the same violations are still present after the warning above. [15] still replaces <references>; [16] replaces {{ tocright}}, which is not on the AWB list. Template:tocright is used on thousands of pages and is in no way deprecated by Template:TOC right.
There are also edits which remove the " Metadata: see Wikipedia:Persondata." comment from the "persondata" template [17]. AWB actually adds this comment by default, based on this diff from the AWB documentation [18], so in particular AWB does not remove this comment by default. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
Persondata}}
comment, the information is visible on the template page, there's no need to direct editors off to Wikipedia space.On the Matter of John Shipp, I'm come to inform you that I will be leaving the article alone from here on out. Although I feel that the article is still questionable, consensus is clearly in your favor for the retention of the article. I tip my hat to you for the work and for being patient with even as I worked to get the article axed; most users are not that polite.
Sincerely,
TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich: Although I have edited on WP for years, I don't think I have run into quite the situation that now prevails in trying to add a section about Wikipedia administration to the article Wikipedia. I wonder if you can provide some perspective on the matter. Here is how I see things:
I've made a proposal for an addition to Wikipedia regarding its organization into four levels: the WikiMedia Foundation, WP:Bureaucrats, WP:Administrators, and WP:Arbitrators. Some details about their duties and the selection process by which they are appointed are added.
If the proposal is implemented upon the article page, it is immediately reverted with citation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, which are completely inappropriate, without any attempt to show that the criteria have been violated. A more complicated objection is WP:Primary, although there is a caveat in this document that WP may be used as a source about itself.
No argument about the applicability of these criteria is engaged upon, and no attempt to analyze just what is objectionable about these facts is made. Does it help or hurt the article? Not a consideration.
So we have here a situation where a presentation of very simple facts cannot be made because there are perhaps four or five editors that will revert it on the basis of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:Primary; applicable or not.
Am I correct in thinking that this is a perfect block to presenting this material? Can you conjecture as to the source of this opposition: what is so hard to swallow here? Brews ohare ( talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The proposed addition is here, in case you have forgotten about it. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
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 [19] 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 [20]. 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 would also be interested in the answer to the questions above as it makes no sense to me. I see no compelling reason to unblock this bot considering all the factors (the number of errors it seems to make, and the lack of responsiveness from the operator, the number of complaints on this talk page, ...). Another bot performing the same task seems to receive no complaints and is doing the job perfectly well.
RE This isn't causing any complaints from the editors who are adding the tags, it was due precisely to complaints/feedback from the bot's "clients" that this delay is being demanded. Your dismissive response to User:EEng and failure to follow through showed how you respond to your "touchstone".
To summarise I propose leaving this bot blocked indefinitely as I foresee no end to the problems encountered so far. My patience is fairly well exhausted on this matter and other bots are doing the same work without any problems, so there is no loss to Wikipedia. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If it means anything, I miss good old Smack bot; it was fast and reliable as a nuclear clock. At 22:48 I last laid down some tags @ Medal of Honor and as of 02:48 the "nicely behaved bot" has not placed dates. I also liked Smack bot because it fixed any irregularities in the article while it was in there. I used to ping Smack bot with the request template just to have it clean up articles. :) So this delay going on made go and look for what happened to your bot and I find this crap. I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater. Brad ( talk) 07:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I created {{ Cat use dmy dates}} and {{ Cat use mdy dates}} and applied them to the most obvious categories having to do with ballet companies and dancers (which is all I really care about!)
They are crude copies of {{ Use dmy dates}} and {{ Use mdy dates}}, merely omitting the onlyarticles parameter.
I don't know whether there is an onlycategories parameter; but, if there were I would include it.
I just made the presence of the templates visible within the categories in which they are present: Articles in this category use dmy dates (and vice verse).
For the benefit of editors who do things the old-fashioned way, by hand.
This discussion began on my talk page, the Megan Fairchild section, which is now archived here.
Ohconfucius wrote that he uses a script to tag articles MDY or DMY and could use some help modifying it.
Rather than expect a script to search up and down the category tree for each article it seemed wiser to do so once and for all, tagging the categories by hand.
Ohconfucius' script needs to be modified to detect the presence of the Cat use dmy dates and Cat use mdy dates templates in any of the categories in which a given article directly resides.
NB There will be articles that lie in categories that are tagged both ways, Alexandra Ansanelli being a prime example; these ambiguous articles will need to be skipped by the script.
Ideally the script would put out a list of articles requiring human intevention — but this is far from an ideal world.
I would not be asking you, a veteran of the Date Wars, to re-enlist, but hope that this can be done discreetly and so avert future Date Wars.
You are absolutely right about how unimportant this, date format, is.
Indeed, I'd be happier if there were fewer scipts being run, ideally none, and people would do some real editing for a change! — Robert Greer ( talk) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice! — Robert Greer ( talk) 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich,
I have noticed your helpful edits on the Ariel A. Roth article, thanks.
I moved AfD to Afd. because "Articles for deletion" really should be "Afd". And because Cfd and Tfd are that way also. And I moved quite a few templates with the capital "D", together with their documentation pages. Just one page I couldn't move: Template:AfD in 3 steps. So I temporarily created Template:Afd in 3 steps with the lowercase "d", but now I need someone to delete it and do the move the way it should have been done. Could you please do that? Debresser ( talk) 06:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
And the same precisely for Template:AfD categories, Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD, and Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD/doc. Debresser ( talk) 06:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see the two sections I posted about this subject on Template_talk:Fix#Substitution_check and Template_talk:Fix#Method_of_substitution_check (one right after the other). I compare Ambox with Fix, asking a few questions and making a few suggestions. Debresser ( talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich. I just wondered if the original creation of the article for the American TV series Kimchi Chronicles (which is fine as it is and I edited it recently as well) had a kind of flaw in its creation. It seems that the original article was created by an editor called "frappeinc" ( User:frappeinc) which happens to be the production company for the show and owned by Charles Pinsky in NYC: Frappé Inc.. That was the only contribution by that user. Was it a COI originally? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 16:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich: You commented earlier upon this proposed addition to the page Wikipedia outlining the formal structure of WP. Since your comments, a number of further changes have been suggested and implemented. Could you take another look at this proposal and comment further? Thanks for your assistance. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Daily Mail Inspirational Woman of the Year, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Femail ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing. I'm sending this to both newsletter recipients and regular participants, because I appreciate we've been a bit quiet :).
So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).
For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a good question at Template_talk:Tfm#Notice_parameters. I couldn't really answer it. If the answer is that such a change could be made, go ahead. I'll update the documentation afterwards. Debresser ( talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Star | |
for equanimity under sustained criticism, that might be considered an attack. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
There is a good question at Template_talk:Tfm#Notice_parameters. I couldn't really answer it. If the answer is that such a change could be made, go ahead. I'll update the documentation afterwards. Debresser ( talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Star | |
for equanimity under sustained criticism, that might be considered an attack. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For the {{ Stable version}} template, a light-touch way to keep track of article stability and quality. Yaris678 ( talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Stable version and article milestones. Yaris678 ( talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
{{
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.{{
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".{{
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.{{
cn}}
to {{
Citation needed}}
and changes a hyphen to an en-dash.
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC).A description of WP organization is in this draft. Please look it over and make changes with accompanying discussion on its Talk page. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Now moved to this location. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
To those who have provided moral and intellectual support in these recent troubles, and especially the last days and weeks. It is, of course, irritating, annoying, frustrating and depressing when those who should know better nickel-and-dime over the most inane trivia that should have been sorted on day 2 of Wikipedia, but of course we have come to expect that after an eight year battle over the spelling of a dairy product. It is even more depressing to find that these folk have had some success in poisoning the well, as one ex-arb put it "anything repeated often enough becomes believed."
I never know quite why we loose users like some of the all-time greats we have lost this year. If they were blocked, was it justified, or was it "the cabal" or infighting? If they left have they thrown their toys out, or just been ground into submission, or is there indeed a difference? But I do, more and more, come to understand the sort of thing some of them have been on the receiving end of. Let me assure you, though, that I will not willingly join their number.
Despite the depressing nature of some recent events, and interactions, I am by nature an optimist. My optimism is buoyed whenever someone acts in a way that is for the betterment of the encyclopaedia, and especially when they can see the big picture. In particular coming out and speaking in support of what I am doing (albeit a minor part of what I am doing, but I believe important for a number of reasons, including, vitally, editor growth and retention) - in the face of some determined, some might say unswervable, opposition including some big "names" might not be considered fun. Nonetheless, they come, not just here, but on ANI and even at Arbcom, and for no more reason than to do what is right - many, indeed most, do not agree with me on everything, but they still take the time and effort to post their insights and support.
And for that I thank you.
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC).
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
Yep, not easy at all. Thanks for your efforts to improve WP. Even "inconsequential" changes have their place in one's scripts and editing repertoire – if nothing for more effective maintenance. I've been around long enough to see how through incremental change that WP becomes a better reader's (I didn't say "user") experience. Keep yer chin up! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. In Milford Haven, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Pembroke ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
For your great work in mediating over the years |
Tamsier ( talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
You always edit with integrity and honour. A quality I respect greatly. Always there to offer help when needed to clarify Wiki policy |
Tamsier ( talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Rich! I was wondering if you have time/are willing to help with a simple, but voluminous task I'm facing. I am looking at replacing one parameter name of the {{ ru-census}} template with another in every article which transcludes this template. Is this something you can help with? I'll let you know the details of what needs to be changed if you can. Thanks!— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); December 19, 2011; 16:12 (UTC)
What (free) text editor do you recommend for editing perl scripts? The Transhumanist 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you know of any (copyleft) text editors and/or word processors written in perl? I'd like to familiarize myself with how they work. The Transhumanist 21:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
These aren't Perl specific but try taking a look at notepad ++ here and Scintilla here. They may lead you to some helpful information. You can also check out Sourceforge fro some good stuff written in Perl. All three of these are Free open source software related. -- Kumioko ( talk) 00:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Hans Popper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Sinai Hospital ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for fixing the "Jaguar/Sandbox/3" problem. I'm afraid that I don't use Wikipedia anymore so I was not able to sort out the problem myself. Anyway, thanks! Jaguar ( talk) 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC) |
Just to let you know about this current discussion concerning a series of articles which you created. Exok ( talk) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum ( talk) 23:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Help me to edit this article: Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's Asian Qualifiers User:Banhtrung1 03:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC).
See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Golden_Glory_hijinks (in case you hadn't). Chzz ► 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a short article about a Jewish youth organisation I am familiar with. Would you mind having a look at it, and perhaps make some changes or leave me a comment? Also, do you think it should perhaps be considered a stub? It is already in main article space at Ezra USA. Debresser ( talk) 17:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You are now wheel warring on the fully protected page Template:Schooldis. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich,
I've broke a drought of about a year to make a comment on the Stop Online Piracy Act. Could you have a look at Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act#Another article that misses crucial parts of the bill as I've a number of concerns that there are important sections of the proposed legislation that aren't addressed in the article.
I've no intention of making an account, and I don't wish to reveal who I am (no, I'm not banned) though it might be possible to work out who I am. But I'm bringing to your attention on the off chance that something can be done.
Thanks, anon - 114.76.227.0 ( talk) 00:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Paul Davidson (business) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Kerowyn
Leave a note
22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I want to possibly add a watchlist patrol for WikiProject Nickelodeon, including the talk pages and Recent changes which I've created without a bot. Could someone add it? Thanks. JJ98 ( talk) 07:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:Femto Bot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 07:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikiproject Cambridge is now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 21:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's another bug I've found: [22]. The dates in Russian should not be converted to English even when they are actually just dates (a translation of the whole ref needs to be added, if only to maintain the style), but in this particular case these dates are in fact parts of the book title, so translating them mangles the ref completely. Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); December 20, 2011; 21:57 (UTC)
You are going to hate me, but can you also do a similar run for {{ ru-pop-ref}}, replacing the "2010Census" parameter with "2010Census_prelim"?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); December 21, 2011; 18:04 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Duff (d.967). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jenks24 ( talk) 11:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich, I've restored this after you deleted it as I don't think it was anywhere near worthy of deletion under G11. I've removed some of the worst spammy stuff instead. Cheers SmartSE ( talk) 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Previously, you wrote:
I saw how to do #1 and #3 in your initial ("Stats") script. How do you do #2? The Transhumanist 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
(note both types of quotes work, they are subtlety different.)
But how do you put the data in a file ("print" just displays it on the screen, right?), and then how do you place it in a page on Wikipedia? The Transhumanist 03:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice. By the way, was that supposed to be "mypage.txt" (mypage dot txt)?
Thank you for the tip. I'm now reading the Input and Output chapter of the Llama book.
And I found
the documentation on get ()
(which you used in the initial script).
Okay, here's my next question...
Now that you have content in a file, how to you place that content on a Wikipedia page? The Transhumanist 23:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Duff (d.967). Since you had some involvement with the Duff (d.967) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sandstein 17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Rich. I noticed (as did others) that you were replacing {{ Portal box}} with {{ Portal}}. IMO all well and good however I have opened up a discussion on the Portal box talk page to solicate some opinions of eliminating portal box completely and just using Portal. Comments have already been made about also merging a couple of other Portal related templates and just using {{ Portal}} for those as well. So, in the mean time could you stop making the Portal box to Portal edits so that we can discuss the consolidation of these templates (then maybe we can do a bot request or something and just be done). This will eliminate the possibility of changing one and then end up changing it back again after the discussion is over. Thanks. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There was a question on Template_talk:Merge#Avoid_blank_line_at_end about a template you made. I gave an answer, but you may have more to say. Debresser ( talk) 17:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk page followers might be interested in
Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#RfC on Template redirects.
Rich
Farmbrough,
11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
Hi, you've recently fixed some spelling in that article but the whole text is at times unreadable machine translation of its Italian version, it seems. :) What's the policy on that? WillNess ( talk) 11:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I have posted on the talk page of Template:Stable_version and would like your input there. Great job, by the way, that's an excellent idea.
Falconus p t c 13:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you throw light on the point at Talk:Michael Tyson (antiquary), by any chance? PS you said Humph! re the recent Cambridge meetup. There was something screwy about the site notice, but not that I could see; so apologies if you were blind-sided. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Block was hasty and confused, since it was based on an assurance to change operational parameters of a task, which was kept, and later fine tuning of those parameters was wrongly treated as a breaking of that assurance - which in itself would not be a good block reason anyway.
Decline reason:
I think there is enough reason for this bot to remain blocked, at least until some sort of conclusion is reached regarding waiting times. — Joseph Fox 09:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See above
Accept reason:
Per above. Also blocking admins seem to be on hiatus, and blocking rationale makes next to no sense. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC).
Hey there Rich Farmbrough, thank you for your contributions! I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User:Rich Farmbrough/Final Fantasy (video game)/Header.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Template: A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag.. *
Edits by:
Last edit by
BAGGER was by 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)
Template: A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag.. *
Edits by:
Last edit by
BAGGER was by 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)
Template: . *
Edits by:
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)
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)
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)
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)
In this edit [1] 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 [2] [3]
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. [4] [5] [6] [7]. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 01:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
(/(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
{{
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.{{
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".{{
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.{{
cn}}
to {{
Citation needed}}
and changes a hyphen to an en-dash.
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC).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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I let that discussion at
WP:AN run itself into the ground, in the benighted hope that you would stop making the edits that are driving people mad. However, it appears that like everyone ele who runs bots (remember I'm on a committee with Xeno and Coren) you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum. (remove dismal failure at humour. Just call me
Jeremy Clarkson ) Or at the very least, you can't figure why what you do is annoying people. So it falls to me,
Captain Swing the
Luddite to remind you that
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). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged. Sanction imposed per this AN discussion, to be enforced by escalating blocks
Now you're an intelligent man, and it shouldn't come to this. So I want you to take all the code out of whatever instrument of the Devil it is that you use, that does things like this and changes <references/> to {{reflist}}, and switch cases the first letter of template names, and stuff like that. Because the next time that someone tells me that you have done it again, I will block you in the following sequence - 24hrs (in case you thought I wasn't serious), 1 week, 1 month, 1 year. And that would not be a good thing. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
Tracklist}}
is a redirect to {{
Track listing}}
, "Track listing" is the preferred name for the section and the template follows suite. There is no benefit in having several versions of the template name in articles, those of us who speak languages other than Python prefer spaces between our words. Asking users (implicity) to remember that the section has one title and the template another is unnecessary cognitive load.
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC).One more example. This edit [14] replaced the names of several templates and removed "example.jpg". But why was "example.jpg" there in the first place? The vandalism on the page - adding the name "Kailyn" - stands out both because it is in bold and because it is in a "see also" section but not linked. It's very odd to remove the image but not remove the rest of the vandalism. It is also not clear how the edit summary "copyedit" is applicable to that edit; cf. copyediting. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
He simply continues though, e.g. replacing here the deliberate and correct McCartney-Lennon with the reverse Lennon–McCartney. This one as well was not necessary at all. Fram ( talk) 15:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the same violations are still present after the warning above. [15] still replaces <references>; [16] replaces {{ tocright}}, which is not on the AWB list. Template:tocright is used on thousands of pages and is in no way deprecated by Template:TOC right.
There are also edits which remove the " Metadata: see Wikipedia:Persondata." comment from the "persondata" template [17]. AWB actually adds this comment by default, based on this diff from the AWB documentation [18], so in particular AWB does not remove this comment by default. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
Persondata}}
comment, the information is visible on the template page, there's no need to direct editors off to Wikipedia space.On the Matter of John Shipp, I'm come to inform you that I will be leaving the article alone from here on out. Although I feel that the article is still questionable, consensus is clearly in your favor for the retention of the article. I tip my hat to you for the work and for being patient with even as I worked to get the article axed; most users are not that polite.
Sincerely,
TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich: Although I have edited on WP for years, I don't think I have run into quite the situation that now prevails in trying to add a section about Wikipedia administration to the article Wikipedia. I wonder if you can provide some perspective on the matter. Here is how I see things:
I've made a proposal for an addition to Wikipedia regarding its organization into four levels: the WikiMedia Foundation, WP:Bureaucrats, WP:Administrators, and WP:Arbitrators. Some details about their duties and the selection process by which they are appointed are added.
If the proposal is implemented upon the article page, it is immediately reverted with citation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, which are completely inappropriate, without any attempt to show that the criteria have been violated. A more complicated objection is WP:Primary, although there is a caveat in this document that WP may be used as a source about itself.
No argument about the applicability of these criteria is engaged upon, and no attempt to analyze just what is objectionable about these facts is made. Does it help or hurt the article? Not a consideration.
So we have here a situation where a presentation of very simple facts cannot be made because there are perhaps four or five editors that will revert it on the basis of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:Primary; applicable or not.
Am I correct in thinking that this is a perfect block to presenting this material? Can you conjecture as to the source of this opposition: what is so hard to swallow here? Brews ohare ( talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The proposed addition is here, in case you have forgotten about it. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
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 [19] 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 [20]. 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 would also be interested in the answer to the questions above as it makes no sense to me. I see no compelling reason to unblock this bot considering all the factors (the number of errors it seems to make, and the lack of responsiveness from the operator, the number of complaints on this talk page, ...). Another bot performing the same task seems to receive no complaints and is doing the job perfectly well.
RE This isn't causing any complaints from the editors who are adding the tags, it was due precisely to complaints/feedback from the bot's "clients" that this delay is being demanded. Your dismissive response to User:EEng and failure to follow through showed how you respond to your "touchstone".
To summarise I propose leaving this bot blocked indefinitely as I foresee no end to the problems encountered so far. My patience is fairly well exhausted on this matter and other bots are doing the same work without any problems, so there is no loss to Wikipedia. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If it means anything, I miss good old Smack bot; it was fast and reliable as a nuclear clock. At 22:48 I last laid down some tags @ Medal of Honor and as of 02:48 the "nicely behaved bot" has not placed dates. I also liked Smack bot because it fixed any irregularities in the article while it was in there. I used to ping Smack bot with the request template just to have it clean up articles. :) So this delay going on made go and look for what happened to your bot and I find this crap. I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater. Brad ( talk) 07:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I created {{ Cat use dmy dates}} and {{ Cat use mdy dates}} and applied them to the most obvious categories having to do with ballet companies and dancers (which is all I really care about!)
They are crude copies of {{ Use dmy dates}} and {{ Use mdy dates}}, merely omitting the onlyarticles parameter.
I don't know whether there is an onlycategories parameter; but, if there were I would include it.
I just made the presence of the templates visible within the categories in which they are present: Articles in this category use dmy dates (and vice verse).
For the benefit of editors who do things the old-fashioned way, by hand.
This discussion began on my talk page, the Megan Fairchild section, which is now archived here.
Ohconfucius wrote that he uses a script to tag articles MDY or DMY and could use some help modifying it.
Rather than expect a script to search up and down the category tree for each article it seemed wiser to do so once and for all, tagging the categories by hand.
Ohconfucius' script needs to be modified to detect the presence of the Cat use dmy dates and Cat use mdy dates templates in any of the categories in which a given article directly resides.
NB There will be articles that lie in categories that are tagged both ways, Alexandra Ansanelli being a prime example; these ambiguous articles will need to be skipped by the script.
Ideally the script would put out a list of articles requiring human intevention — but this is far from an ideal world.
I would not be asking you, a veteran of the Date Wars, to re-enlist, but hope that this can be done discreetly and so avert future Date Wars.
You are absolutely right about how unimportant this, date format, is.
Indeed, I'd be happier if there were fewer scipts being run, ideally none, and people would do some real editing for a change! — Robert Greer ( talk) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice! — Robert Greer ( talk) 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich,
I have noticed your helpful edits on the Ariel A. Roth article, thanks.
I moved AfD to Afd. because "Articles for deletion" really should be "Afd". And because Cfd and Tfd are that way also. And I moved quite a few templates with the capital "D", together with their documentation pages. Just one page I couldn't move: Template:AfD in 3 steps. So I temporarily created Template:Afd in 3 steps with the lowercase "d", but now I need someone to delete it and do the move the way it should have been done. Could you please do that? Debresser ( talk) 06:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
And the same precisely for Template:AfD categories, Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD, and Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD/doc. Debresser ( talk) 06:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see the two sections I posted about this subject on Template_talk:Fix#Substitution_check and Template_talk:Fix#Method_of_substitution_check (one right after the other). I compare Ambox with Fix, asking a few questions and making a few suggestions. Debresser ( talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich. I just wondered if the original creation of the article for the American TV series Kimchi Chronicles (which is fine as it is and I edited it recently as well) had a kind of flaw in its creation. It seems that the original article was created by an editor called "frappeinc" ( User:frappeinc) which happens to be the production company for the show and owned by Charles Pinsky in NYC: Frappé Inc.. That was the only contribution by that user. Was it a COI originally? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk) 16:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich: You commented earlier upon this proposed addition to the page Wikipedia outlining the formal structure of WP. Since your comments, a number of further changes have been suggested and implemented. Could you take another look at this proposal and comment further? Thanks for your assistance. Brews ohare ( talk) 20:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Daily Mail Inspirational Woman of the Year, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Femail ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 13:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, all! A quick update on how version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool is developing. I'm sending this to both newsletter recipients and regular participants, because I appreciate we've been a bit quiet :).
So, we're just wrapping up the first round of user contributions. A big thank you to everyone who has contributed ideas (a full list of which can be found at the top of the page); thanks almost entirely to contributions by editors, the tool looks totally different to how it did two months ago when we were starting out. Big ideas that have made it in include a comment voting system, courtesy of User:Bensin, an idea for a more available way of deploying the feedback box, suggested by User:Utar, and the eventual integration of both oversight and the existing spam filtering tools into the new version, courtesy of..well, everyone, really :).
For now, the devs are building the first prototypes, and all the features specifications have been finalised. That doesn't mean you can't help out, however; we'll have a big pile of shiny prototypes to play around with quite soon. If you're interested in testing those, we'll be unveiling it all at this week's office hours session, which will be held on Friday 2 December at 19:00 UTC. If you can't make it, just sign up here. After that, we have a glorious round of testing to undertake; we'll be finding out what form works the best, what wording works the best, and pretty much everything else under the sun. As part of that, we need editors - people who know just what to look for - to review some sample reader comments, and make calls on which ones are useful, which ones are spam, so on and so forth. If that's something you'd be interested in doing, drop an email to okeyes@wikimedia.org.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions so far. We're making good headway, and moving forward pretty quickly :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a good question at Template_talk:Tfm#Notice_parameters. I couldn't really answer it. If the answer is that such a change could be made, go ahead. I'll update the documentation afterwards. Debresser ( talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Star | |
for equanimity under sustained criticism, that might be considered an attack. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
There is a good question at Template_talk:Tfm#Notice_parameters. I couldn't really answer it. If the answer is that such a change could be made, go ahead. I'll update the documentation afterwards. Debresser ( talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Star | |
for equanimity under sustained criticism, that might be considered an attack. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 21:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | |
For the {{ Stable version}} template, a light-touch way to keep track of article stability and quality. Yaris678 ( talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Stable version and article milestones. Yaris678 ( talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
{{
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.{{
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".{{
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.{{
cn}}
to {{
Citation needed}}
and changes a hyphen to an en-dash.
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC).A description of WP organization is in this draft. Please look it over and make changes with accompanying discussion on its Talk page. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Now moved to this location. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
To those who have provided moral and intellectual support in these recent troubles, and especially the last days and weeks. It is, of course, irritating, annoying, frustrating and depressing when those who should know better nickel-and-dime over the most inane trivia that should have been sorted on day 2 of Wikipedia, but of course we have come to expect that after an eight year battle over the spelling of a dairy product. It is even more depressing to find that these folk have had some success in poisoning the well, as one ex-arb put it "anything repeated often enough becomes believed."
I never know quite why we loose users like some of the all-time greats we have lost this year. If they were blocked, was it justified, or was it "the cabal" or infighting? If they left have they thrown their toys out, or just been ground into submission, or is there indeed a difference? But I do, more and more, come to understand the sort of thing some of them have been on the receiving end of. Let me assure you, though, that I will not willingly join their number.
Despite the depressing nature of some recent events, and interactions, I am by nature an optimist. My optimism is buoyed whenever someone acts in a way that is for the betterment of the encyclopaedia, and especially when they can see the big picture. In particular coming out and speaking in support of what I am doing (albeit a minor part of what I am doing, but I believe important for a number of reasons, including, vitally, editor growth and retention) - in the face of some determined, some might say unswervable, opposition including some big "names" might not be considered fun. Nonetheless, they come, not just here, but on ANI and even at Arbcom, and for no more reason than to do what is right - many, indeed most, do not agree with me on everything, but they still take the time and effort to post their insights and support.
And for that I thank you.
Rich
Farmbrough,
01:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC).
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
Yep, not easy at all. Thanks for your efforts to improve WP. Even "inconsequential" changes have their place in one's scripts and editing repertoire – if nothing for more effective maintenance. I've been around long enough to see how through incremental change that WP becomes a better reader's (I didn't say "user") experience. Keep yer chin up! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. In Milford Haven, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Pembroke ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
For your great work in mediating over the years |
Tamsier ( talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
You always edit with integrity and honour. A quality I respect greatly. Always there to offer help when needed to clarify Wiki policy |
Tamsier ( talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Rich! I was wondering if you have time/are willing to help with a simple, but voluminous task I'm facing. I am looking at replacing one parameter name of the {{ ru-census}} template with another in every article which transcludes this template. Is this something you can help with? I'll let you know the details of what needs to be changed if you can. Thanks!— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); December 19, 2011; 16:12 (UTC)
What (free) text editor do you recommend for editing perl scripts? The Transhumanist 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you know of any (copyleft) text editors and/or word processors written in perl? I'd like to familiarize myself with how they work. The Transhumanist 21:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
These aren't Perl specific but try taking a look at notepad ++ here and Scintilla here. They may lead you to some helpful information. You can also check out Sourceforge fro some good stuff written in Perl. All three of these are Free open source software related. -- Kumioko ( talk) 00:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Hans Popper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Sinai Hospital ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for fixing the "Jaguar/Sandbox/3" problem. I'm afraid that I don't use Wikipedia anymore so I was not able to sort out the problem myself. Anyway, thanks! Jaguar ( talk) 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC) |
Just to let you know about this current discussion concerning a series of articles which you created. Exok ( talk) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum ( talk) 23:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Help me to edit this article: Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's Asian Qualifiers User:Banhtrung1 03:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC).
See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Golden_Glory_hijinks (in case you hadn't). Chzz ► 20:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a short article about a Jewish youth organisation I am familiar with. Would you mind having a look at it, and perhaps make some changes or leave me a comment? Also, do you think it should perhaps be considered a stub? It is already in main article space at Ezra USA. Debresser ( talk) 17:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You are now wheel warring on the fully protected page Template:Schooldis. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich,
I've broke a drought of about a year to make a comment on the Stop Online Piracy Act. Could you have a look at Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act#Another article that misses crucial parts of the bill as I've a number of concerns that there are important sections of the proposed legislation that aren't addressed in the article.
I've no intention of making an account, and I don't wish to reveal who I am (no, I'm not banned) though it might be possible to work out who I am. But I'm bringing to your attention on the off chance that something can be done.
Thanks, anon - 114.76.227.0 ( talk) 00:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Paul Davidson (business) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Kerowyn
Leave a note
22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I want to possibly add a watchlist patrol for WikiProject Nickelodeon, including the talk pages and Recent changes which I've created without a bot. Could someone add it? Thanks. JJ98 ( talk) 07:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:Femto Bot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 07:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikiproject Cambridge is now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 21:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's another bug I've found: [22]. The dates in Russian should not be converted to English even when they are actually just dates (a translation of the whole ref needs to be added, if only to maintain the style), but in this particular case these dates are in fact parts of the book title, so translating them mangles the ref completely. Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); December 20, 2011; 21:57 (UTC)
You are going to hate me, but can you also do a similar run for {{ ru-pop-ref}}, replacing the "2010Census" parameter with "2010Census_prelim"?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); December 21, 2011; 18:04 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Duff (d.967). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jenks24 ( talk) 11:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rich, I've restored this after you deleted it as I don't think it was anywhere near worthy of deletion under G11. I've removed some of the worst spammy stuff instead. Cheers SmartSE ( talk) 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Previously, you wrote:
I saw how to do #1 and #3 in your initial ("Stats") script. How do you do #2? The Transhumanist 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
(note both types of quotes work, they are subtlety different.)
But how do you put the data in a file ("print" just displays it on the screen, right?), and then how do you place it in a page on Wikipedia? The Transhumanist 03:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice. By the way, was that supposed to be "mypage.txt" (mypage dot txt)?
Thank you for the tip. I'm now reading the Input and Output chapter of the Llama book.
And I found
the documentation on get ()
(which you used in the initial script).
Okay, here's my next question...
Now that you have content in a file, how to you place that content on a Wikipedia page? The Transhumanist 23:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Duff (d.967). Since you had some involvement with the Duff (d.967) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sandstein 17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Rich. I noticed (as did others) that you were replacing {{ Portal box}} with {{ Portal}}. IMO all well and good however I have opened up a discussion on the Portal box talk page to solicate some opinions of eliminating portal box completely and just using Portal. Comments have already been made about also merging a couple of other Portal related templates and just using {{ Portal}} for those as well. So, in the mean time could you stop making the Portal box to Portal edits so that we can discuss the consolidation of these templates (then maybe we can do a bot request or something and just be done). This will eliminate the possibility of changing one and then end up changing it back again after the discussion is over. Thanks. -- Kumioko ( talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
There was a question on Template_talk:Merge#Avoid_blank_line_at_end about a template you made. I gave an answer, but you may have more to say. Debresser ( talk) 17:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk page followers might be interested in
Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#RfC on Template redirects.
Rich
Farmbrough,
11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
Hi, you've recently fixed some spelling in that article but the whole text is at times unreadable machine translation of its Italian version, it seems. :) What's the policy on that? WillNess ( talk) 11:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I have posted on the talk page of Template:Stable_version and would like your input there. Great job, by the way, that's an excellent idea.
Falconus p t c 13:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you throw light on the point at Talk:Michael Tyson (antiquary), by any chance? PS you said Humph! re the recent Cambridge meetup. There was something screwy about the site notice, but not that I could see; so apologies if you were blind-sided. Charles Matthews ( talk) 12:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Block was hasty and confused, since it was based on an assurance to change operational parameters of a task, which was kept, and later fine tuning of those parameters was wrongly treated as a breaking of that assurance - which in itself would not be a good block reason anyway.
Decline reason:
I think there is enough reason for this bot to remain blocked, at least until some sort of conclusion is reached regarding waiting times. — Joseph Fox 09:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough/Archive ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See above
Accept reason:
Per above. Also blocking admins seem to be on hiatus, and blocking rationale makes next to no sense. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Rich
Farmbrough,
12:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC).
Hey there Rich Farmbrough, thank you for your contributions! I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User:Rich Farmbrough/Final Fantasy (video game)/Header.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)