- Note
- Email may occasionally go astray due to spam filtering.
|
|
Amazing award
All Around Amazing Barnstar | ||
I can't thank you enough for all the turtle content and improvements you've been making the last few days. If I was adding the synonyms myself it would of taken me months. Exceptionally great work Richard! Thank you! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks! It would be quicker but I have one hand and both feet immobilised. Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC).
- Could you please go round all the pages which mix turtles and tortoises up and correct them? If you're not busy, that is :-) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will also correct the pages that say penguins are fish and not biscuits, and that tadpoles turn into butterflies, when they are not insects, as they have eight legs. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC).
- Rich, sorry to bother you. Is missing this synonym a human error or is there some logic to why this might not be added. It's on the original Fritz 2007 pdf, page 303, right at the bottom. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, there are a bunch of things I need to go over and fix, of which that is one. In terms of pages most of the main job is done, but I think the end has more sp. per page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks for what you have done, it's a HUGE improvement! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Incidentally Three-striped roofed turtle has synonyms listed for 1889 and 1879. I suspect 1879 is a transcription error in Fritz, maybe someone could check. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
- The Kachuga dhongoka Fritz entry that is out of year sequence does look strange. I have not been able to track down Anderson, Zool. Res. Yunnan, 1878: 732. For now I will assume it's correct information but out of sequence. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, there are a bunch of things I need to go over and fix, of which that is one. In terms of pages most of the main job is done, but I think the end has more sp. per page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
- Rich, sorry to bother you. Is missing this synonym a human error or is there some logic to why this might not be added. It's on the original Fritz 2007 pdf, page 303, right at the bottom. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will also correct the pages that say penguins are fish and not biscuits, and that tadpoles turn into butterflies, when they are not insects, as they have eight legs. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC).
- Could you please go round all the pages which mix turtles and tortoises up and correct them? If you're not busy, that is :-) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Follow on
Greetings Rich Farmbrough, I noticed your comment where you expressed a possible interest in improving Wikipedia coverage of articles related to record production. It would be great having your collaborative input on how best to achieve this goal. Review links associated with WP:RECP and P:RECP, and know that you are considerably welcome to help forge the path forward. My76Strat (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is a distinct pleasure to welcome you to this project. I agree wholeheartedly with your stated motivations and stand ready to collaborate unto this needed end. Be bold with your ideas, for I am keen. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
A Barnstar I made for you (with help from my bot)
The tireless cybernetic contributor Barnstar | ||
I wanted to acknowledge the sacrifice made and the changes that so much editing brings to the way you think and dream. When I play the computer games too much, then it shades everything else I do, so after a million edits I can only imaging what differences there must be from people who do just a little bit of editing. I wonder if it is like Neo in the Matrix, where vision merges into code and everything normal dissappears, maybe it doesn't go that far, but I prefer to think it can, life is more interesting that way. Penyulap ☏21:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)_ |
- That is rather amazing.
- As far as I know I don't dream WP, I don't see it when I close my eyes. That latter has happened when I have done something intensively for 48 hours.
- The integration is simply a matter of experience. Of course, my typing skills are beginning to fail, and my reactions slowing, but most things I have already seen and done many times.
- Everything normal does disappear, just the same as reading a book, watching a film, or doing a hard problem. Someone I know called it "all interrupts disabled".
- Thanks for the barnstar.
Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC).
- Thank you, you're welcome, oh, and don't forget Jaguar, I just posted to his page. Penyulap ☏ 23:34, 2 Jun 2012 (UTC)
- Done Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC).
- Done Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC).
Astrobots
Can we talk about the astrobot situation? I don't know where to go from here. Chrisrus (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded the settings to WP:AWB/scripts, it includes the article list, so anyone with AWB access should be able to run it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC).
- Yep, that's the one... Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks! So, should I put in another botreq? How should it be worded? What's the best thing to do with the orbitboxes for those that have orbitboxes? How many on the list even have orbitboxes, anyway? How can I identify someone with "WP:AWB access"? Chrisrus (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Al admins, me and everyone on the list at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage can technically use AWB. Anyone else can request access. Rich Farmbrough, 19:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC).
- Ok! So where should I put in the request, what should it say, and what in your opinion is the best way to save the orbitbox data, if, in your opinion, should it be saved? Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ask at WP:AWB/tasks and/or bot requests. I wouldn't worry about the orbitbox data, it's all available from JPL etc., and if it is wanted it would be better to re-generate it en-bloc.
- If you would, please follow Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Helpful_Pixie_Bot and comment as you would. Chrisrus (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you would, please follow Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_needed_to_count_infoboxes_on_a_very_long_list. I'm confused. Are you allowed to comment there? Please advise, I'm trying to figure out what to do next. Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you would, please follow Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Helpful_Pixie_Bot and comment as you would. Chrisrus (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ask at WP:AWB/tasks and/or bot requests. I wouldn't worry about the orbitbox data, it's all available from JPL etc., and if it is wanted it would be better to re-generate it en-bloc.
- Ok! So where should I put in the request, what should it say, and what in your opinion is the best way to save the orbitbox data, if, in your opinion, should it be saved? Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Al admins, me and everyone on the list at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage can technically use AWB. Anyone else can request access. Rich Farmbrough, 19:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks! So, should I put in another botreq? How should it be worded? What's the best thing to do with the orbitboxes for those that have orbitboxes? How many on the list even have orbitboxes, anyway? How can I identify someone with "WP:AWB access"? Chrisrus (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, that's the one... Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC).
Help another wiki?
Hi Rich. I occasionally edit at another wiki. It was set up by a person who was tired of all the BS here. They're running a relatively recent version of MediaWiki. I've tried to help them with some template stuff over the last year, but haven't been very sucessful. I was wondering if you might be willing to help over there. I know you've given a lot of your life to this project and might be loyal to it, so if the answer is "no", that's fine. I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Best regards. 64.40.57.10 (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't the only wiki where I have a million edits![Citation needed] And sure I'd help with some templating as long as it's not something against my principles. Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
- Thank you very kindly, Rich. You truly are a courteous and generous individual and I'm very thankful for your help. The problems I'm having are over at en.wikialpha.org where I'm registered as Web. Ive left the details at my talk page over there. I didn't link to the site because the guys there got dinged at AN/I for spamming their site here last summer Thank you so much. 64.40.57.10 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you 64.40.57.10 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very kindly, Rich. You truly are a courteous and generous individual and I'm very thankful for your help. The problems I'm having are over at en.wikialpha.org where I'm registered as Web. Ive left the details at my talk page over there. I didn't link to the site because the guys there got dinged at AN/I for spamming their site here last summer Thank you so much. 64.40.57.10 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Helping the Welsh Language Wiki
Hi Rich, I've left a message here for your attention. It basically asks which bot should I approve for the new coordinates on Welsh language Wiki. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Go for it! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Before I can authorise your Bot, don't you have to pop in to Wiki-cy? Otherwise I can't see you. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please log in to Wikipedia-cy and make a bot request here. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- You've got permission, so when you have the time, let's do it! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please log in to Wikipedia-cy and make a bot request here. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Before I can authorise your Bot, don't you have to pop in to Wiki-cy? Otherwise I can't see you. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
You've been busy! Anything I can do to help? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Whawww! You've done some great work on the Welsh Wikipedia: great coo-ordinates and geotagging stuff on Welsh Mountain Peaks - brilliant!
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
For all the technical problems you solved on the Welsh Wikipedia - ARDDERCHOG! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Rich. Is it too much to ask whether you could help us a second time? I've uploaded / written around 2,000 articles - by hand! - based on Scottish peaks. Could we do the same with those, and get a map to show their location in Scotland? What you did on the Welsh one was fantastic, and it would greatly improve the Scottish articles, just as much. Diolch yn fawr! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure if you missed this one Rich? Or is it too much of a climb this time?! 2,000 Welsh articles on Scottish Peaks above 610 m; and no map in sight! Take a look here please. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- This one too much of a mountain to climb, Richard? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Your barnstar
Δ This user has endured a wide breadth of the institutional ignorance that darkens this organization, yet loves it still. Δ |
I lament that you've earned this "Black barnstar of institutional shame" aside from seeing your strength of character, the only good thing about this award is that so very few are entitled to display it. Highlight the award as if to copy and the massage becomes clear. My76Strat (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! Rich Farmbrough, 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC).
- It comes with a massage? Cool. Nobody Ent 18:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar | |
I had missed your warm hand over my contributions. Thanks. Mesfushor (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Nice barnstar Thank you! Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC).
The Purple Barnstar | ||
for equanimity under the harrassment now enforced by arbcom. i will now be moving more DNB content over in your name. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC) |
writing backwards
It does make it hard to read, it's not backwards, but it is so very strange for it to be out of place, like, even when the lyrics of one song are sung to the melody of another song it's more pleasing. But I expect that will pass in time. One moral, which is my favourite, would be that careless curiosity is destroying all the best ideas, because there is no top shelf to put things on. That's my favourite moral, and the bane of my existence.
My own moral is that maths is not all it's cracked up to be, because so many good things don't fit inside mathematics. What's needed is a place to put all those good things, and there are a LOT of good things, so the best place to put things is inside big fat heads, take mine for example, it's basically empty, and lots of real estate, of course we need extra big fat heads, because good things keep getting produced, you know, like stupid ideas, good ideas are endless. Right now, good things and people go to the same place. Penyulap ☏ 09:43, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting reading. Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC).
Bots
Hi Rich. Have you considered that your bots may have developed a superior form of artificial intelligence and caused your demise on purpose? It won't have been the first time. benzband (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for that stupid comment. I just noticed your "quote of the day" displayed at the top of this page. So i thought, maybe you would be interested in Wikipedia's Motto of the day project, which provides a new quote every day? benzband (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Deleted template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 June 2012
- Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?
- News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia
- Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Vendor-created ISBNs
Do you have any suggestions for the treatment of what appear to be ad hoc ISBNs created by booksellers (Amazon, perhaps?) for publications issued without an ISBN, as in this case? These numbers are useful for users who wish to find the book, but should a bot (yours or someone else's--I know yours are blocked for the forseeable future) that vets for hyphenation rules ever run again, these purpose-made ISBNs will get re-tagged. Is the template {{Listed Invalid ISBN}} appropriate for these cases, even though there is no problem with the math? Any other ideas? Thanks--ShelfSkewed Talk 05:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this is unlikely to be created by the bookseller. Amazon use an ASIN for un-numbered publications. The number should probably have one less "9" and start 978-0- or 978-1- . I have emailed the ADL for more information. Note that there is a system for numbering books after publication, which may be what happened in this case, or it may be a second impression got an ISBN, even if the first was un-numbered. As for the error tag being removed, next time around the block I will have to simply create a list and fix them all myself. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC).
- So in the meantime I should go ahead and remove the check-isbn tag if the number is useful for finding the book? I'd be happy to keep track of these as I run across them, if that would be worthwhile. Best,--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, you can make the tag invisible, by changing isbn = 012345679 to id = ISBN 0123456789. We should still keep track of invalid ISBNs. Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC).
- Will do.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, you can make the tag invisible, by changing isbn = 012345679 to id = ISBN 0123456789. We should still keep track of invalid ISBNs. Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC).
- So in the meantime I should go ahead and remove the check-isbn tag if the number is useful for finding the book? I'd be happy to keep track of these as I run across them, if that would be worthwhile. Best,--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
lets hope
you get unblocked soon and do better edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windows.dll (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- The account unblocks on 6 July, and the damage done by the Arbitration Committee means that my contributions will be far less. Quite how the restrictions and blocks create benefit for anyone apart from a few malcontents has never been proposed, much less demonstrated. Rich Farmbrough, 08:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC).
- straight punishment, all things considered. Penyulap ☏ 16:40, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)
- Three or four more articles today went uncorrected - this is just through my general use of WP. How this punishes me is a mystery, it actually saves me time. Other readers of those articles, however are punished. Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC).
- Three or four more articles today went uncorrected - this is just through my general use of WP. How this punishes me is a mystery, it actually saves me time. Other readers of those articles, however are punished. Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC).
- straight punishment, all things considered. Penyulap ☏ 16:40, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 June 2012
- WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics
- Featured content: A good week for the Williams
- Arbitration report: Three open cases
- Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
bot tutorial
Hi Rich,
Would you be willing to tutor me in creating a bot to run this task? I've requested it several times, but I think you're the only one who'd ever be likely to take it on, so I'd probably better do it myself. I've never created a bot before, and my background is just basic generic programming.
— kwami (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll have to look at the task, but I don't see why not. Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC).
Category:User htz
Category:User htz, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- G7 it. Rich Farmbrough, 18:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC).
The Signpost: 02 July 2012
- Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism
- News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool
- In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?
- Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport
- Featured content: Heads up
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools
- Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Searching a website
Hi. Re: IUCN. They have a search facility and I think the results are handed out by a php or something similar. It is not essential, but I think it would be handy to search the webstie with a script, but I have not been able to find a suitable expression for "get" in Perl LWP. The code in the redlist html indicates a "post" method is used. Otherwise, I can use urls directly to the species pages and the "get" works. Just for scanning purposes of the wiki mark-up code, I have just found out that "get" does not work with the url "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White-crowned_Parrot&action=edit", probably for similar reasons. Do you have any comments? Snowman (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Teahouse
Hi Rich, thanks for helping at the Teahouse. One more thing you can do - because many of the vistors are new editors we try to put talkback notices on their talk pages when their question is answered (detailed here). I found a script that does this semi-automatically if you're interested. --NeilN talk to me 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm a complete idiot. I forgot about your restriction. Truly sorry. --NeilN talk to me 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I am interested, though I am forbidden from using such dark magiks. Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC).
- Incidentally I made a quicker verison
{{Teahouse talkback}}
some time ago. Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC).
- It's here: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseTalkbackLink.js. It adds a TB link to every signature. Click the one besides the questioner, add the section title, and it will place a TB notice on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 00:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Currently laptopping from Heathrow, on my way to Wikimania, so can't do much sophisticated stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC).
- You understand of course that you are forbidden from using an eTicket, automated pre-boarding, inflight semi-automated service requests, and must claim your baggage by physically walking to the plane and rummaging around in the boot for your bag rather than depend on any automated or semi-automated baggage system, yes? Also be aware that you must eschew any pre-printed name tag while at Wikimania. Please take one of the blanks provided and physically write your name on the tag. If you choose to ignore this warning, you will be flogged, and forced to walk the gang plank at flight level 10,000 on your return journey. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nononono. It's clear that flying is an assisted way of travelling so Rich will have to get to Washington using his own two feet (we'll allow the use of a rowboat). Given that there's approximately 5,900 kms between London and Washington, doing 30 kms/day will get him to Wikimania on January 22, 2013. Hope he's packed his longjohns! --NeilN talk to me 18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. You know, Google Maps says he can use a kayak to go from Tokyo to Seattle [1]. But, no such boating option is available for crossing the Atlantic [2]. I'm afraid he'll have to walk on water. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Currently laptopping from Heathrow, on my way to Wikimania, so can't do much sophisticated stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC).
- It's here: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/teahouseTalkbackLink.js. It adds a TB link to every signature. Click the one besides the questioner, add the section title, and it will place a TB notice on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 00:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Incidentally I made a quicker verison
I got to Washington by a number of forms of transport:
- foot (Walking and running)
- travelator
- escalator
- lift
- tram
- bus
- underground
- railway
- car
- plane
Despite realising the opportunity I restrained myself from travelling on the luggage carousel. Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC).
Template:Javascript in categories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 July 2012
- Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football
- Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'
- Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rich
That's me ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 06:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Help me install AWB on my laptop, and then help me do some talk page template updates. I can show you what I do by hand, and you a can show me how to automate it. Perhaps I may want to put in requests instead of doing some complex things myself.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Howdy Rich
It's Daniel Nasaw with the BBC - we met Thursday at Wikimania. Thanks for your time and your help - the piece should be up on the website tomorrow Sunday 15 July. Meanwhile, I'm hoping I might talk to you briefly on another Wiki related topic. I don't know where on the planet you'll be but if you're happy to talk early in the upcoming week, would you please give me a shout at daniel dot nasaw at bbc.co.uk and we can set something up? Thanks so much. Dnasaw (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I just read the BBC story (Wikipedia: Meet the men and women who write the articles). Congratulations! - Pointillist (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- WooHoo! I'm glad to know my friend Richard is a good looking guy, it's a bit of a worry online, you never know what your friends look like. I've only ever been seen by one wikipedia editor (mental note: organise a hit).
- Penyulap ☏ 09:01, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations on making the news - and it wasn't for riding the baggage carousel (you can only do that if you look like cow luggage, or even cow luggage). BTW - you look like my hubby, only hubby is rather greyer. I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wowow! It was awesome meeting you at the conference! I stopped by to congratulate you on getting your face on the main page of BBC's US News website! Thanks for fixing all the articles on mixed martial arts. You really are a Wikipedia ninja. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers
Enjoy your stay It was a pleasure to meet my fellow millionaire—I hope you had an excellent stay and please let me know if you think we can collaborate in the future. Cheers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
You have a new message on your Meta-Wiki talk page
Hello Rich, you have got a new message here. — T. 05:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Please accept this virtual cookie as a thank-you for the irl cookie you were kind enough to dig up for me when I mentioned my Wikimania lunch hadn't come with one. A truly gallant gesture! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC) |
Wikimania!
It was great to meet you IRL this past week! And congrats on being featured in that BBC article - as I believe the youth are putting it these days, you're a rock star :) Accedietalk to me 23:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 July 2012
- Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling
- Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations
- Featured content: Taking flight
- Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June
- Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:Football box header
Hi Rich. Is Template:Football box header, which you created in September last year, still required? It's not transcluded anywhere and it's only referenced as a "See also" from the docpage for Template:Football box. If it's no longer required, I'll propose it for deletion (or you can, if you prefer). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've nominated the template for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well done!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18833763
--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikimania
Hey Rich - Just wanted to drop you a note to say it was a pleasure to meet you at Wikimania, and put a face to a name I've seen all over the project. Hope you are well and enjoyed yourself in D.C. --David Shankbone 05:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikimania
Wikimania
|
Template:Portal frameless has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"Illegal activities"
Accusing the Arbitration Committee of "illegal activities" in my book, is definitely not OK. Please explain why you posted that and why it is not an actionable violation of our conduct policies. NW (Talk) 12:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Egregious copyright violations for a start. In the deeper past there are other events. The critical point, which has been missed I think, is that quite apart from systemic errors and groupthink, it is extremely naive to assume that all functionaries now and in the future will be deserving of the trust placed in them by the community. We have empirical evidence to the contrary. For this reason, if no other, we should design our processes and procedures in such a way as to maximize good governance, by providing a reasonable set of checks and balances. While being an admin is no big deal, being a functionary (specifically Arbitrator, Checkuser or OTRS) is a big deal. Clearly making herculean efforts to ensure the quality of the post holders is of limited values, we may cite national, corporate and religious leaders. It is a shame that comments I have made to this effect appear to have been interpreted by some as attacking current postholders either individually or collectively, whereas, whilst I have expressed serious concerns about specific actions of postholders, primarily as a group, these are not of the type or nature relating to basic trustworthiness. Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC).
- Perhaps a large part of this is the reader's (my) fault, but when I read your comment, I took the third sentence to be a simple continuation of the second sentence, making it seem like you were accusing all fifteen Arbitrators of being criminals. I would deeply appreciate it if you could go back and clarify your statement, if only to make it clear to others like me who might misread your point. NW (Talk) 22:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or invent something amusing about the 15 that we can all enjoy. Penyulap ☏ 22:56, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- If it were necessary to invent things for there to be a problem, there wouldn't be a problem. I am surprised at the emails I have received from those who read that comment. Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- If it were necessary to invent things for there to be a problem, there wouldn't be a problem. I am surprised at the emails I have received from those who read that comment. Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- Or invent something amusing about the 15 that we can all enjoy. Penyulap ☏ 22:56, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- I did read it as accusing us all of some criminal activity (then I thought - but how does he know I ran that red light?) - would I be right in guessing you were intending a reference to Rlevse and his copyright problems? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Depends on which country you live in as to which ridiculous laws you'd be breaking at all times, like possessing a lobster is actually a felony in the United States. Penyulap ☏ 23:56, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't know it was a felony but I did know that possessing any living creature is considered rude and somewhat creepy. Movies have been made about it...usually children and attractive young women...but not a lobster that I am aware of. Might make a good spongebob episode though! Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Only if it is loaded, I think. Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- It's a felony all right, it was in a lecture video I saw, I'm away from home to see doctors right now, but when I return later I'll find it for you, it's a good video. Penyulap ☏ 02:17, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- Pen, you know I often type a smart comment, then hit the back button rather than the save button. I find that little voice that asks "is this really witty/helpful/erudite, or am I just going to come across like Mister Nigel-murray" is very helpful sometimes.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Elen, sometimes I think that we should all remember that we are just a bunch of people with not a lot else to do except get on our computers and work together at trying to make the world a better place, I think sometimes we get so tied up in the details of the processes that we use that we lose sight of the big picture, so sometimes I do try to say "hey come on now, we're just people, let's lighten up a bit and not be too serious as stress can be pretty bad for our health" I'm not saying there isn't a blance and a time to be serious there is,. but all work and no play makes us all Grumpy. And look at poor Andy ! I do everything I can to cheer him up, and he never gives me a secret smile or a gruff 'go away' and I think it's better that way actually. I picture him sitting at his computer frowning at the ambulance I gave him. I think he has a frown for every occasion, and every activity he does around the house. I think when he was little, and skipping down the street, he'd do it with a frown. He'd be like "La la la la lah" skipping and frowning at the same time. It works for Andy, it's the thing I like best about Andy the Grump. Oh, and I've tried to start humour eradication drives before to make this place more serious, oh how I have tried, but I got little support in my endeavours. Jokes and humour are a menace to society and need to be stamped out I agree, but who's with me ? I think too many people like a little bit of stress relief now and then, and gosh darn it, I think occasionally, not very often, I can raise a smile, and I don't think that's all bad for our health and wellbeing and the community as a whole.
- That said, I do put my foot in my own mouth sometimes, I just got uninvited from someones talkpage for something I wish I hadn't said, and can't exactly go back and apologise where I'm not welcome to comment. So yes, I am human and have regrets too often for my liking. Penyulap ☏ 02:13, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- Should have explained myself better. The lobster comment was funny - especially Kumioko's addition. But your previous comment.....why would Rich want to make up stories about how I was involved in criminal activity? In Bones, Vincent Nigel-murray was so nervous around people that he talked all the time, and a proportion of everything he said was inappropriate or offensive even though he never intended it that way. A fun character in a tv series, but not a great role model. When I don't manage to stop myself, I have a habit of making "humorous" quips that are actually inappropriate. Rich can confirm this, because I've done it to him before now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well I did make up a humorous SF story, indirectly featuring the committee, to try and demonstrate the dangerous waters we find ourselves in, in a less threatening manner than spelling it out to those currently nurturing the cute baby alligators. Unfortunately my dystopian tale was largely ignored, as far as I can tell, so it's not a path I am likely to tread again. Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- I must have missed that. Did it feature me as an ass-kicking hot babe. No such luck I expect - I was probably the grumpy old bat in the cardi who kept rambling on about the good old days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2012May#An_outing. The last page of archives before ArbCom broke that, appropriately. And no, you are not a grumpy old bat in a cardi, this is fiction remember? Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2012May#An_outing. The last page of archives before ArbCom broke that, appropriately. And no, you are not a grumpy old bat in a cardi, this is fiction remember? Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- I must have missed that. Did it feature me as an ass-kicking hot babe. No such luck I expect - I was probably the grumpy old bat in the cardi who kept rambling on about the good old days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well I did make up a humorous SF story, indirectly featuring the committee, to try and demonstrate the dangerous waters we find ourselves in, in a less threatening manner than spelling it out to those currently nurturing the cute baby alligators. Unfortunately my dystopian tale was largely ignored, as far as I can tell, so it's not a path I am likely to tread again. Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- Should have explained myself better. The lobster comment was funny - especially Kumioko's addition. But your previous comment.....why would Rich want to make up stories about how I was involved in criminal activity? In Bones, Vincent Nigel-murray was so nervous around people that he talked all the time, and a proportion of everything he said was inappropriate or offensive even though he never intended it that way. A fun character in a tv series, but not a great role model. When I don't manage to stop myself, I have a habit of making "humorous" quips that are actually inappropriate. Rich can confirm this, because I've done it to him before now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Depends on which country you live in as to which ridiculous laws you'd be breaking at all times, like possessing a lobster is actually a felony in the United States. Penyulap ☏ 23:56, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps a large part of this is the reader's (my) fault, but when I read your comment, I took the third sentence to be a simple continuation of the second sentence, making it seem like you were accusing all fifteen Arbitrators of being criminals. I would deeply appreciate it if you could go back and clarify your statement, if only to make it clear to others like me who might misread your point. NW (Talk) 22:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I would add a clarifying word or two, however the page is now protected. Once again discussion is being stifled. I note some absurd points on the talk page, doubtless there were also absurd points in the case, since I was prevented from commenting on it, I have not followed it in detail, nonetheless from what I have seen the standard of the case seems to be barely above the sophomoric, and it can be accounted no more than an accident if some of the proposed remedies appear to coincide with the decisions a more mature and deliberative body might have made. Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- Page unprotected. NW (Talk) 01:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
Federal offence in the United States, possession of a lobster.
here it is. Sorry it is a not a felony it is a "Federal CRIMINAL statute" to possess a lobster. Clearly I do not spend enough time studying US Federal criminal statutes to remember clearly the difference. The video is very good for people who live in the USA it includes a lot of real expert advice, and from what I do understand about the USA it's a place where, like en wikipedia (which is based too much on that same culture), mistakes are permanent (deadly or indef). Innocent people are put to death in Texas, USA as explained here in the same way as people are indeffed here on wikipedia. Basically it's not relevant if the editor or the person is 'factually innocent' as was the case with my last block, the fact that I was innocent was considered irrelevant by the reviewing admin. Strange case in the video, it mentions a (mentally ill) man who was tricked into confessing to 'assist the police to catch the real killer', and he was convicted instantly by a jury and spent 20 years in prison until DNA evidence proved him innocent. The judge stated he would have indeff penaltied (executed) him if Michigan had the indeff penalty bit at that time. I'm not saying that I was blocked because I was acting strange, I'm saying innocence has nothing at all to do with some block reviews on wikipedia, and in the case of my last block appeal it is fundamentally and patently true that innocence as I was, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the (I have to stop myself here from calling him an idiot) the admin's decision. Anyhow, there is of course the lesson to come out of it all, or the victory, which is my talkpage is babysitting a prototype template which allows the community to both back up our admins, or point out to them the problem to them. At the moment it's rough, it needs the third section 'unclear' as well) Penyulap ☏ 16:03, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- When people are executed, they lose their life. When editors are indeff'ed, they have another opportunity to get a life. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I guess when you get put to death in the USA, you don't have to live there anymore. Penyulap ☏ 16:22, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- I am afraid that you wield your power thoughtlessly if that is what you believe. On a mundane level the blocks imposed by Elen and Arbcom made me ineligible for a number of Wikipedia related jobs for which I would otherwise have been well suited. On a more severe level ostracism and isolation are correlated with suicide and violence. (Volkart 1983) Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- Some people were telling me at ANI that I can't mentor a newbie because of my last two blocks, what a crock of s*** right there. But hey, it's as good an excuse as any pointless excuse. Many countries have strange laws that say speeding ticket this no running for office that or whatever, interesting is Julian Assange is going to run for a seat in the Senate of Australia (government) and apparently he may well be able to do it from a jail cell anywhere along the way from England ? through Switzerland to death row in America, all while picking up the Nobel prizes and what have you along the way. I think it's brilliant. Penyulap ☏ 17:29, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- For clarity, by Wikipedia related jobs I mean real jobs paying real money, not on-wiki roles, badges or hats. But arguably that too, apparently I was eligible to re-stand as an admin immediately, but do ArbCom seriously think anyone could weather the kind of event that would be? Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- For clarity, by Wikipedia related jobs I mean real jobs paying real money, not on-wiki roles, badges or hats. But arguably that too, apparently I was eligible to re-stand as an admin immediately, but do ArbCom seriously think anyone could weather the kind of event that would be? Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- Some people were telling me at ANI that I can't mentor a newbie because of my last two blocks, what a crock of s*** right there. But hey, it's as good an excuse as any pointless excuse. Many countries have strange laws that say speeding ticket this no running for office that or whatever, interesting is Julian Assange is going to run for a seat in the Senate of Australia (government) and apparently he may well be able to do it from a jail cell anywhere along the way from England ? through Switzerland to death row in America, all while picking up the Nobel prizes and what have you along the way. I think it's brilliant. Penyulap ☏ 17:29, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Ramadan
I have been doing some good things with the Ramadan article. At least, that is my opinion. There seems to be one editor who disagrees, see the talkpage. In any case, do you think I'll get to pick my virgins myself? Debresser (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- By pick do you mean "choose" or "pluck"? It is somewhat in dispute, I understand, as to the correct translation of that phrase anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- I pluck my chickens and choose my chicks, thank you very much. 07:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
July
Note that I am travelling without a permanent Internet connexion until the beginning of August. Rich Farmbrough, 02:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
- Which is hardly going to help me get the quick tip I asked you about in an email just then. oh well, I hope you're having fun. Yer lucky butt. Penyulap ☏ 08:51, 24 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Wishing you well
I hope you culminate your travels safely and profit greatly for the endeavor. Assuming Godspeed, it would be great if when you are more available if you could directly assist a few tasks ongoing at WP:RECP. I know you have skills that would greatly enhance some immediate efforts. Sincerely 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Nu gaze for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nu gaze is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AfD discussion title until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 July 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
- From the editor: Signpost developments
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics
- Arbitration report: Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans
- Featured content: When is an island not an island?
- Technology report: Translating SVGs and making history bugs history
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Astrobots
Good news! Astrobotster User:Merovingian seems to have become active again recently. Please if you would watch User_talk:Merovingian#List_of_MInor_Planets and comment as you would. You seem to understand him better than I. Chrisrus (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ramona Quimby merger proposal
Hello. There's a merger proposal relating to an article or articles you've contributed to, relating to the Ramona Quimby books. You are invited to read about and discuss it here: Talk:Ramona (novel series)#Merger Proposal. Thank you. Tlqk56 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Riicchhhhh
...you should add yourself to the host page damnit! WP:Teahouse/Hosts :) You know you want tooooooooooo ;-) SarahStierch (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Rich Farmbrough, 01:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
Did YOU know
I liked the quote of the day, and it's nearly the same thing as a Sam Cooke song, "A Change Is Gonna Come"-- the second stanza is "It's been too hard living but I'm afraid to die 'Cause I don't know what's up there beyond the sky It's been a long, a long time coming, but I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will". It is truly a great song covered by a lot of the early sixties soul singers and many others since then, and worth hearing and seeing the track here: [3] (Copied from MetroLyrics.com) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. There was another song from that era - "Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die." Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
Nearly forgot- re: session musicians
Hey. when I want to add a more subcategory rather than just session musicians to American session musicians there's normally no problem. But I tried to do so for those from New Zealand, and I think I screwed it up. And-- today, I find that there are some Czech session players which could use a similar category.. but, you see my dilemma? I mean, first I screw up the New Zealand one- check and see! I wanted to add Bruce Lynch and Neil Finn to the NZ session players at the least. I'd appreciate your help. :) --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Should all be good now. Let me know if there are problems. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- Many thanks, as usual! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know who put it in the MoS, but the advice on embedding Japanese in English Wikipedia is wrong. Several kanji examples in this MoS page are also not properly tagged. (If you know anybody else who is interested in this topic, please either advise them or let me know their User name so that I can notify them before I make any changes to the MoS.)
- When embedding multiple languages in a web page, it's advisable to use the lang tag as semantic markup (1) to indicate the correct language to the browser—the browser will then choose a font that includes the character set for that language to render the snippet of text that you marked with language tags. The other reason (2) for using such semantic markup is that Google is not forced to guess the language—sometimes, or even often, it guesses wrong for Chinese and Japanese. The reason is that some Unicode character code points are shared by Chinese and Japanese. In a Japanese font, a Unicode character can be displayed quite differently than the same Unicode character displayed in a Chinese font. There are some examples here. With many European languages one can often get away with not using the lang tag. But Japanese embedded in English text and not properly tagged is likely to be garbled if displayed on a Chinese PC—and vice versa. In Wikipedia, the mechanism for lang-tagging is Template:Lang and other related templates such as the Nihongo templates for explaining embedded Japanese (there are also Chinese templates for explaining Chinese). In Japanese web pages, for example, if English is not tagged as such then it is displayed using a Japanese font, and looks really ugly. FYI there's a Japanese web page tagged for English, Chinese, and Korean here. LittleBen (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- The best approach to fixing this is to either change the MoS page or discuss it on the talk page. The user who added the advice may no longer be interested, or may have left. As far as the
{{Lang}}
template is concerned I am a big supporter, if more refinement is needed,please let me know. Rich Farmbrough, 02:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
The Signpost: 30 July 2012
- News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing
- Featured content: One of a kind
- Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Transclusion problem
Hi Rich, would you know where a vandal could have gotten in the templates such that it links back to his user page? These links shouldn't be and it would be good to remove them per DENY. I can't find the link. It pertains to this thread and there is this archived SPI case. He has been using open proxies and likes to taunt. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. Cheers,
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are currently no transclusions - lots of links but they seem to be legitimate, as far as I have looked. Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- Check again. Something really weird happening imo. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the evidence for the first assertion. Is there an example of a linked to page that seems odd you could provide? Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- Looks like it's fixed now. Yesterday a huge number or articles and Wikipedia core pages linked to that user page. No longer, maybe I missed some initial vandalism and when I looked at the pages that link here some sort of propagation was going on? Either way it's now okay. So no problem. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK cool. Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- OK cool. Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- Looks like it's fixed now. Yesterday a huge number or articles and Wikipedia core pages linked to that user page. No longer, maybe I missed some initial vandalism and when I looked at the pages that link here some sort of propagation was going on? Either way it's now okay. So no problem. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the evidence for the first assertion. Is there an example of a linked to page that seems odd you could provide? Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- Check again. Something really weird happening imo. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Linking pages
|
---|
(I would turn these into links buut that would require automation.) Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC). |
- Not sure if it was intended, but I found the above extremely funny. :) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: Arybhata Pi
Hello,
You have one new message here: User_talk:Titodutta#Aryabhata.27s_Calculation_of_Pi --Tito Dutta ✉ 19:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
Regex
Is it okay to ask you about Regex? I'm trying to learn and read about it but some things I've tried don't work as intended so I'm a little stuck. It's okay if your not interested I can't try the help desk. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- Starting with the AWB typo rule of <Typo word="Manufacture" find="\b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b" replace="$1anufactur$2" />
- The above rule works but I encountered some spelling "manuafracture" and "Manuafacture" that this rule is doesn't detect. So I tried extending the comparison by adding "|[ua]fa" thus ending up with \b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[ua]fa|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b" but this didn't work.
- Now I figure the problem is that it's only comparing to one character 'u', so how to I extend the rule to match the two letter 'ua'? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
To allow for two crudely
- \b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[ua][ua]fa|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"
One or two you can use
- \b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[ua]{1,2}fa|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"
But this replicates the next [au]fa
- \b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[au]{1,2}fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"
We can include missing vowel "Manfacture"
- \b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[au]{0,2}fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"
And multiples giving a simpler (looking) rule
- \b([Mm])an(?:[ai]fac?|[au]*fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"
Note though that we are still not matching everything we probably want because of the [ct].
- \b([Mm])an(?:[ai]|[au]*)fa[ct]{1,3}ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"
This fixes that problem. But the (?:[ai]|[au]*) is notw a little redundant
- \b([Mm])an(?:[ai]|[au]*)fa[ct]{1,3}ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"
This deals with that problem without, probably matching stuff we don't want.
- \b([Mm])an[aiu]*fa[ct]{1,3}ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b"
Rich Farmbrough, 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- None of those work on Manuafracture. Maybe it's the regex tester in AWB? Anyway, have to sleep. Will check through this another time. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- \b([Mm])an[aiu]*fr?a[ct]{1,3}ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b" Rich Farmbrough, 02:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- The early rules above say [ai] but it should say [aiu], then they work on the start 'manauf'.
- I can NOT use the * as AWB/T says "Don't use the quantifiers * and + with anything but a single character. Avoid them entirely, if possible, as they put extra strain on CPU and are apt to do other than what you expect."
- I'm not sure what the {1,3} (1-of-3) applies to. Does that mean 1-of-3 of the 'fact' or just the 'ct'? I'm confused by that at the moment.
- Here is my first revised version \b([Mm])an(?:[aiu]{0,2}fr?ac?|[ua]fa|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b
- Next I'm going to add (Re) at the beginning and check (in a dictionary) for different possible endings. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Added the start (Re) and (Un) and ending able/ability, plus "man'o'facture" is covered.
- \b(M|m|[Rr]em|[Uu]nm)[au]n(?:[aiou]{0,2}fr?ac?|[ua]fa|[au]fa)[ct]ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing|e?able|e?ability)\b Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK that's cool.
- {x,y} matches x, x+1 ... y-1, y occurrences.
- [au] and [ua] are the same, they both match a or u.
- The instructions about not using * and + are sage, but not wholly valid. Certainly the CPU comment depends very much on the actual regex. Consider for example vowel matching "[aeiou]+" vs "[aeiou]{1,2}". (Maybe [eaiou]+ for speed...) This will generally be matching a one vowel string, and sometimes 2 - there will be almost no 3 vowel matches. Let us suppose that 25% of characters are vowels and that we have a uniform random distribution of letters.
- \b([Mm])an[aiu]*fr?a[ct]{1,3}ur(e[ds]?|ers?|ing)\b" Rich Farmbrough, 02:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
No vowels | % | Operations method 1 [aeiou]+ | Operations method 2 [aeiou]{1,2} | Expected cost of using method 2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 75 | match (1) | check count (1) match (1) | .75 * 1 |
1 | 17.25 | match (2) | check count (2) match (2) | .1725 * 2 |
2 | 4.57 | match (3) | check count (3) match (3) | .0457 * 3 |
3 | 1.26 | match (4) | check count (3) match (3) | .0126 * 0.5 |
4 | 0.32 | match (5) | check count (3) match (3) | - .0032 *2 |
- As you can see not until we get to four vowels in a row does the {1,2} method become cheaper than + — and that is at the expense of missing 6.25 % of the items we want to match.
- I would replace (M|m|[Rr]em|[Uu]nm) with ((?:[Uu]n|[Rr]e|)[Mm]) - this is - to me at least - clearer in function. It does of course match UnM and leave it mis-capitaliɀed
- [ct]ur only matches "cur" or "tur" - it is relying on the "c?" of "fr?ac?" to match "factur".
- All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks! I don't understand the CPU maths and at this point it is of little use on rocking the previous consensus. It's really cool what you've done with the rule. It's given me a lot more understanding and ability when using regex. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- As you can see not until we get to four vowels in a row does the {1,2} method become cheaper than + — and that is at the expense of missing 6.25 % of the items we want to match.
You may be interested in Talk:Institute of Mathematics and its Applications#Merging in The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, which relates to merging a stub you started a while ago. Yaris678 (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks, commented there. Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
The Tea Leaf - Issue Five
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
- Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
- More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
- Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
- New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
- Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Ibid
In this edit you use name = {{{name|Ibid}}}
. Why not use simply name = Ibid
, as I have seen it done in (so far) all other maintenance templates? Debresser (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- It allows wrapper templates to pass their names, using the same paradigm. Rich Farmbrough, 01:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC).
Hello, I'd just like to thank you for the improvements you're in the process of making to the Antonio Diego Voci page, they are very helpful. Is there any way I can be of assistance to you? Ahjkl67435 (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 August 2012
- News and notes: FDC portal launched
- Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases
- Featured content: Casliber's words take root
- Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity
- WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 23:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Templates and sockpuppets and categories and if tests and OH GOD THE HORROR
Hi Rich, I ended up staring at Template:Sockpuppet category for a while (for something minor and already fixed), and I think I spied an error in the template. Check out this diff in Template:Sockpuppet category/sandbox please and let me know if you agree. From what I can tell, namespace errors are being silently unreported because the if tests are not closing properly. The closing brace in that diff change should fix it but I'm not confident enough to just slap on a {{protected edit}} request and call it a day. BigNate37(T) 19:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- You were right about the error. I changed the sandbox and made a testcase. I think that is better, I used classic code indentation, so it need a little testing, but looks OK. Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC).
Wiki-work
Cheers Rich, I think you should have an email, let me know if this is not the case. Tommy Pinball (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Skip if contains .{2000}
Greetings Rich, I just wanted to clarify something. The Skip if contains .{2000} statement you made. Is that greater than 2000 or less than? Also, does that include things like infoboxes and categories? I assume it does but not sure. Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- It would match 2000 or more characters. I would assume a hard and fast rule would not be needed, but you could craft a regex to do a reasonable job of excluding infoboxes and categories, with a little work. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks, is there a way to say something like 0 to 500? Its fine if it includes categories and templates that small, it'll still be a stub. Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, .{0,500} Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC).
- Awesome thanks I'll give that a go. Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think I am doing it right. When I put in .{0,1000} under doesn't contain (assuming that anything with more would still have that many) with the regex box checked, it still doesn't catch some that I know are less than 1000 characters. Is there something else that I am missing? Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- So they are being skipped, what is the reason in the skip field in the log? Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
- As much as I have used AWB I didn't even know there was a skip log. Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- On the right hand side next to the edit summaries is a "Logs" tab, click on Logs and at the bottom is a scroll list of article you've skipped for the session with a skip reason column. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 01:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- As much as I have used AWB I didn't even know there was a skip log. Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- So they are being skipped, what is the reason in the skip field in the log? Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
- I don't think I am doing it right. When I put in .{0,1000} under doesn't contain (assuming that anything with more would still have that many) with the regex box checked, it still doesn't catch some that I know are less than 1000 characters. Is there something else that I am missing? Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Awesome thanks I'll give that a go. Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, .{0,500} Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks, is there a way to say something like 0 to 500? Its fine if it includes categories and templates that small, it'll still be a stub. Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The message on the log says "Page does not contain .{2000}". Kumioko (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- But the skip is supposed to be set to .{0,1000} .... Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
- Makes sure the Regex is ticked in the skip tab. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 03:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've tried it a few different ways. Contains/Not contains, with and without regex, .{2000}, .{0,2000} and various other combinations. I just can't seem to get it to work right. Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK I'll try to test tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 03:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
- Problem with ".{0,1000}" is that it matches everything as every article has at least 0 characters. What I got to work was Skip - If contains .{1000,} this will skip if there is more then 1000 characters in the none excluded part of an article. If instead you want smaller articles skipped just put and tick it in the not contains option instead. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 12:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. That's where we started I think and we got lost on the highways and byways of the regex. Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
- Yes indeed. That's where we started I think and we got lost on the highways and byways of the regex. Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
- Problem with ".{0,1000}" is that it matches everything as every article has at least 0 characters. What I got to work was Skip - If contains .{1000,} this will skip if there is more then 1000 characters in the none excluded part of an article. If instead you want smaller articles skipped just put and tick it in the not contains option instead. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 12:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK I'll try to test tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 03:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
- I've tried it a few different ways. Contains/Not contains, with and without regex, .{2000}, .{0,2000} and various other combinations. I just can't seem to get it to work right. Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Makes sure the Regex is ticked in the skip tab. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 03:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
Hello Mr. Farmbrough,
Thank you for your time and expertise in clean-up execution on Antonio Diego Voci. We have addressed, with your assistance both issues of capital letter inconsistency as well as toning down of bolding. Plus we restored the two 1957 paintings that inadvertently disappeared upon your edit. By the way, “clientage” is a legitimate word, “a body of clients; clientele; customers, but we like your word “patrons”. And in “USA” we write “color” without the “u”; and “traveling” without the extra “l”. Also we had not realized Wikipedia used the European system for dates, the day first then the month, which we actually prefer.
Are you British? Even though the USA is no longer a colony, we celebrated the Queen’s birthday right along with you folks on Facebook and Twitter. And watched the Olympics every day. London is probably now suffering aftershock.Ahjkl67435 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are welcome. The regional spelling does not greatly matter either way - I would not object if you change it. I used the date system associated with Europe, since Voci is associated primarily with Europe - Wikipedia uses both systems, but consistently within articles, and subject to geographic usage. It is best to avoid obscure words, all else being equal, so that the articles can be read by the widest possible audience. I think the article is interesting, and, although I can see parts might be objected to by some editors, useful.
- Indeed I am British, although I was in the US for the opening ceremonies... Rich Farmbrough, 18:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC).
Respond
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. Please, listen to me. I need you help. Please, help me. I am at the very end of good faith, so please, please, read this and this, following your logical conclusion. Help me to understand am i wrong, or something else is wrong here. Dont ignore me, i saw that you are very neutral and quite familial with wiki rules. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
TfD for new Cite_web/smart
I am contacting you, per wp:CANVAS, after contacting mostly negative or neutral editors, as a user known to be supportive about quick, fast citation templates, in considering the latest TfD discussion. In this case, the template {Cite_web/smart} is finally the big upgrade to entirely replace {Cite_web} with a faster version that carefully checks the parameters to only invoke {Citation/core} for any rare parameters, else quickly formats a cite plus COinS data. Now, {cite_web/smart} is a massive extension of your October 2011 Template:Cite_book_quick, as a hybrid with {cite_web} and new {cite_quick}. See TfD of 11 August 2012:
This notice is only an FYI, as announcing the discussion under way. Feel free to oppose the template, support the template, ignore the discussion, or even delete this message. The TfD just started, so there should be, at least, 4 days (18 August 2012) to consider the issues.
With that formality stated, I want to thank you for creating Template:Cite_book_quick, which inspired me to create a hybrid template that handles all {cite_web} parameters, only invoking {Citation/core} to format the rare parameters. Currently, major article "Arab Spring" hits the include-size limit, but {cite_web/smart} could reduce the template expansion size in all 1.1 million articles using {cite_web}. -Wikid77 (talk) Wikid77 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 August 2012
- Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden
- Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration
- Featured content: On the road again
- Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit
- WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution
- Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Burton's Biscuit Company - changes
Hi Rich, I noticed you have been changing some text on the Burton's article. When amendment you made that is incorrect is Cadbury brands licensed by Cadbury UK. This should really state Kraft Foods as the official owner of the brand. Please can you undo. Thanks Mrs biskit (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Template:Citation needed cheap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Beland (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much!
Thank you very, very much for the fantastic list of orphaned American artists you generated for me - that's really some service! I'd love to know more about how you managed it but perhaps will wait until I've done some reading and have sensible questions to ask. In the meantime, many thanks! Mfbjr (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Helping out at The Teahouse
Thanks a bunch for helping out at the Teahouse. Many of your answers have been very helpful! One little thing, since many new users are asking question, some may not know about watchlists or realize they need to check in once in a while to see if their question is answered. For that reason, when you do answer a question, please use the talkback template located here on their user talk page so that they know their question has been answered. There is also a script which you can install that will leave the template automatically when you answer a question. Toodles. --Jayron32 01:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for stalking but whats the script and does it work outside the teahouse? Kumioko (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- There are a few different scripts located here and they only work in the Teahouse; though someone with some coding skill (read: not me) could likely adapt them for other purposes. There are likely also other scripts in existence which do what you want, but the teahouse scripts only do teahouse tasks. --Jayron32 01:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
The Signpost: 20 August 2012
- In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia
- Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.
- Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension
- WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Upgrading status of The Little Sister
Hi Rich. I noticed you changed The Little Sister from Stub to Start. I'm a new editor so still not familiar with the review process. I've made a lot of changes to The Little Sister over the last month and I put it in the queue for a formal re-assessment on the Project Novels/Assessment page. When I checked that page it seems to me that the assessment hasn't been completed yet (there is still one page ahead of Little Sister and its not struck through yet). I'm assuming you just noticed the amazingly awesome work I've done ;) and made the change in status? I wanted to check because the text (I assume from a template) that says the page has no references is still there and it clearly does have references now. Can/should I just remove that and if so can you give me a hint how? Or should I just wait for the assessment and let them remove the bit about no references? thanks! Mdebellis (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, while some of the projects have formal assessment systems, I felt sure that promotion to at least "Start" was warranted, after seeing your comments at Teahouse. Yes you can/should remove the unreferenced tag, except that I have done that. In general these tags should be removed when they have served their purpose, but naturally people are a little reticent to do so. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC).
Talkback
Message added 06:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
{{WikiProject OWS}}
You recently moved this template to {{WikiProject Occupy Wall Street}}. While that did make it clearer what it was about, I've reverted it back to the current title, as the name of the WikiProject actually is WikiProject OWS (WP:WikiProject Occupy Wall Street is a redlink). I'm inclined to think that WikiProject should probably be renamed, but as long as it's under that title, the accompanying template should be too. Robofish (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
An invitation for you!
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. |
Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Feedback requested at the Village Pump
Hi Rich. I have a proposal at the village pump about introducing a color scheme to the text editor so it is easier for newer editors to differentiate between different kinds of syntax, particularly references. I'd welcome your feedback at the village pump. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ping
Hi. In case you're not watching meta: m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine#Conference call. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 August 2012
- News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide
- Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?
- Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten
- WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Trucks Act and coal scrip
Many thanks for the comment on the coal scrip article. I agree, 100%, yes, the truck acts were an outcome. My only contention, as one who has been through the usage of scrip first hand, is to define it and then, yes, by all means, show the social issues associated wih its use. I wanted to present a pro and con synopsis and will of course keep this as neutral as possible.Coal town guy (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
save police time, shoot yourself
I certainly didn't mean for it to sound like that. I think if he had responded at ANI with an "oh, I did not kno that, i will not do it again" it would have died down. It's the "I'm doing nothing wrong" response, followed by the "they're all out to get me" defense that doesn't help. I only followed up on the hand in the tools thing because he doesn't use them a right lot, and he's actually said somewhere before this that he's not finding adminning fun. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- This heading is rather shocking! --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thank you for for translating the Toon Dupuis article. Another red link disappeared on the Englisch Wikipedia.
Lotje (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Soft Kitty! Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC).
- Do you know Dutch or is the translators good enough to work out the text? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Translator is good enough, for an article like that. In fact you can quickly learn a few words, and some are very similar to English anyway. The risk is false friends of course. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
- I thought grammar maybe difficult. How about the reverse creating a foreign language article from the English one? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I tried that, got zapped. But I have created Swahili articles form scratch, by example, and with help. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
- I tried that, got zapped. But I have created Swahili articles form scratch, by example, and with help. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
- I thought grammar maybe difficult. How about the reverse creating a foreign language article from the English one? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Translator is good enough, for an article like that. In fact you can quickly learn a few words, and some are very similar to English anyway. The risk is false friends of course. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
Template:Portal talk
Heyo. I'm looking at Portal talk:Contents/Portals where {{Portal talk}} is included, and wondering how to edit that template to: "remove the horizontal line between the list of Archives and the searchbox". The table code mixed with parser functions is hurting my brain; can you easily fix? If not, I'll nag someone else. Ta! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Like this?
- Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
- Ahh, nope, the horizontal rule under the words "Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4", but now that I'm less distracted, I could see and have just removed the offending css... >.< Sorry, and thanks anyway! -- Quiddity (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
- Cool. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC).
- Ahh, nope, the horizontal rule under the words "Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4", but now that I'm less distracted, I could see and have just removed the offending css... >.< Sorry, and thanks anyway! -- Quiddity (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 September 2012
- Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?
- Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Tea Leaf - Issue Six
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
- Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
- Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
- Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
- New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
- Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Please change your script to no longer remove spaces from section headers.
Whatever script you are using, it is still removing spaces from headers, e.g. [4][5][6][7]. These articles had before your edit a uniform system of section header spacing (with spaces between the "==" and the section title on both sides), but now have some section headers with spaces and some without. This violates the main section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason". Please refrain from making these or similar changes. Fram (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see evidence of a script Fram. You are in error. If it were a script, then it would have removed the spaces in the "== Application of microcredit ==", "== History ==", "== Application of microcredit ==", "=== Struggling members program ==="...in fact EVERY section of Grameen Bank but the one you are complaining about that he changed. Can we please drop the whitespace arguments, drop the sticks, and walk away? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- No. Can we please stop the whitespace changes instead? Do you really believe that Rich farmbrough is patiently (and pointlessly) removing all the spaces at the end of bulleted entries and paragraphs by hand[8][9]? It certainly gives the strong impression of being script-based. Fram (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fram, I've already shown you how it is not a script, but your sure it is and are going after him for it...over whitespaces. This is absurd. Drop it. Drop the stick and walk away. If there really is a problem here worth the time, someone else will come along to address it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that theory has been used in the previous discussions a lot, even though it has been shown to be incorrect time and time again. Fram (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have to be honest Fram, these edits don't really bother me. Frankly, what bothers me more is that where Rich formerly did thousands and thousands of edits per day between he and his bots, he now does 20 - 50 at most. Additionally, since none of the other bot operators want to do most of these tasks (such as the WikiProject Watchlists) it means they won't get done at all. So for me, even if he did do a few minor edits that you and a couple of other editors got him automation banned for, the pedia has been harmed far far more by his lack of edits and by your crusade against minor edits that it is by doing them. I personally wish you would just find something else to do. Continuously hounding an editor over a few minor edits is, IMO, really really bad conduct for an Admin. Personally I think its stupid and I find it also rather stupid that I can't be trusted with the admin bit but some admins like you are allowed to hound other editors without interferance over things that are of such insignificance that they are nearly meaningless. Kumioko (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Still, it is a bit absurd to have an editor (Rich) to remove whitespace within headers while bots add them (even in archives). This is an endless war with no winners. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify: I am not against small edits as soon as we have a concrete where we want to go. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kumioko, he was banned for the many errors in his edits (and a number of other issues e.g. about dealing with those errors), not for the minor edits as such. Any reason why he continues making the same edits that go against the guidelines now that he is only editing manually? If it is not caused by a script, then it isn't carelessness but repeated and deliberate editing against guidelines. Fram (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have to be honest Fram, these edits don't really bother me. Frankly, what bothers me more is that where Rich formerly did thousands and thousands of edits per day between he and his bots, he now does 20 - 50 at most. Additionally, since none of the other bot operators want to do most of these tasks (such as the WikiProject Watchlists) it means they won't get done at all. So for me, even if he did do a few minor edits that you and a couple of other editors got him automation banned for, the pedia has been harmed far far more by his lack of edits and by your crusade against minor edits that it is by doing them. I personally wish you would just find something else to do. Continuously hounding an editor over a few minor edits is, IMO, really really bad conduct for an Admin. Personally I think its stupid and I find it also rather stupid that I can't be trusted with the admin bit but some admins like you are allowed to hound other editors without interferance over things that are of such insignificance that they are nearly meaningless. Kumioko (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that theory has been used in the previous discussions a lot, even though it has been shown to be incorrect time and time again. Fram (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fram, I've already shown you how it is not a script, but your sure it is and are going after him for it...over whitespaces. This is absurd. Drop it. Drop the stick and walk away. If there really is a problem here worth the time, someone else will come along to address it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- No. Can we please stop the whitespace changes instead? Do you really believe that Rich farmbrough is patiently (and pointlessly) removing all the spaces at the end of bulleted entries and paragraphs by hand[8][9]? It certainly gives the strong impression of being script-based. Fram (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- @Fram, I was involved in that case and I am very familiar with what was said. Your right to a point but the vast majority of arguments and discussions were based on minor edits. I have seen no less than a dozen editors in the last week alone doing edits that are the same or worse than these and I didn't see your name on even one of their talk pages so it leads me to the belief that you are hounding. When its nearly always the same editor showing up on the same paeg complaining about what seems to be every edit an editor makes, it appears like hounding. Also, IMO, if he wants to use his time removing minor errors, spaces, etc. fine, its his time. I also don't think he is going against guidelines in doing these by the way. There are some rules and suggestions that automated tools not be used in this way but as far as I know very little about doing it manually. So your argument that he is violating guidelines isn't really accurate outside that you don't like it.
- @Magioladitis, I understand what you are saying but here is my take on that. If the bots are adding them, then the bots should be changed to not add them. The bots should not be adding or removing these as doing either at this point in time, seems to be against general concensus. We should not be telling one editor that they are violating the policy by removing spaces when we allow or look the other way when a bot is adding them. That sort of wishy washiness is what gets people frustrated with the rules and causes people to leave.
- @Both, We should not be enforcing the rules when we feel like it or when we agree with it and looking the other way when we don't. If the policy is there then we should be enforcing it evenly, not targetting certain editors because one or 2 editors has a bone to pick or wants to make a name for themselves. This is how I have always felt but yet many admins pick an extreme view and then try and railroad editors into their way of doing things. It happens a lot, I see it all the time. But we let them, because they are admins, they are "trusted" and the rest of us are just scummy regular editors and have no rights, trust, respect or say in what goes on. Then they take the productive editors rights away (like Rich), push them out and then run around wondering why the edit numbers are down and less people are editing when it was their fault they left because they are keeping the wrong people. Since January I have seen nearly 2 dozen productive editors get the boot or quite in frustration because if this kind of nonsense and its time it stops but I am powerless to do anything about it because I am just as hated because I want the ones in power to do the right thing and most of them it seems have their own agendas rather than building an encyclopedia. These days its more like Politipedia. Sorry that was a bit of a rant but I find it extremely frustrating that the community tells me I cannot be trusted and then they let admins go rogue like Fram, CBM and others and do whatever they want but I am the untrustworthy jerk. Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kumioko, have you actually compared the MOS I linked above with the edits Rich Farmbrough makes? This has nothing to do with what is allowed manually but not by automation. This type of edits, i.e. adding or removing whitespace from (some) headers when another style was used in the article, isn't allowed at all. It is also utterly pointless. It is not difficult to stop making such edits. So can you give one good reason why he continued making them anyway? Fram (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fram, can you give one good reason why you introduced a white space between section headers and content here and here when the formatting choices were consistent within the articles before you changed them? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- (inserting this between Hammersoft's question and Kumioko's poorly indented next post). Because these edits actually follow the MOS, instead of violating them like Rich Farmbrough's edits? Just read WP:MOSHEAD instead of giving the false impression that my edits are similar to his, please: "The heading must be typed on a separate line. Include one blank line above the heading, and optionally one blank line below it, for readability in the edit window. (Only two or more consecutive blank lines will add more white space in the public appearance of the page.)" Consistency comes only into play when multiple styles are acceptable (e.g. spaces inside section headers, or reflist vs. references). Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fram I could offer several reasons why many of these edits are useful and in fact I have several times before. Since you failed to listen then, I see no reason why adding them yet again would change it and you would undoubtedly argue that the reasons weren't good enough so the debate is merely academic and futile. I do suggest as others have here and in the past that you disengage for a while and do some other tasks. If Rich is in such violation of policy as you say then others will bring it up. Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really like this discussion because it looks like a WP:BATTLE and Wikipedia is not (should not be) a battleground. I am one the supporters that small changes should be done but I made a lot of effort to satisfy those who disagree. Rich has been one of the pioneers in standardising things without checking it cost in number of edits and I admire this. Without Rich we wouldn't have standardise the WikiProjects for instance. Even worse, the names of many tags would have remained unreadable. On the other hand Fram has been always very good in finding bug mistakes in scripts, AWB, etc. Even better he does a very good use of AWB to make his life and our life easier. Conclusion: I like to cooperate with both of them and I don't like a discussion like this one. If we isolate the discussion on the section headers Rich is wrong, at least IMO. Mediawiki adds headers with spaces if someone presses "New section" on the top. If Rich wants us to move to the other direction (I have no strong feelings on either way) then he will have to change the way Mediawiki adds headers and ask the bot operator of the bot adding spaces in headers (I don't recall its name right now. Misabot?) to at least doing it. Many of us do small edits but these edits aim to a certain target: At some point 99.9% of the pages will have our style because there is a (clear) consensus for that. What Rich does with header spaces has no chance right now. OK, I know that some of you think that this is not the point of this discussion and the discussion but whatever. I don't agree with Rich ban and I have expressed that in many ways but on the other hand I can't just stay and see an endless edit war with no future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with a lot of what you said Magio and my comments above were not directed at you so please don't feel they were. My point was only that its always the same 3 people complaining there is a problem with Rich's edits and having some experience in WP myself, I have learned that the real problems attract lots of people and comments so 3 editors with power saying someone is breaking a rule doesn't sit well with me. With that said I still think that bot, whatever it is, should be changed to leave whatever formatting is in the headers, spaces or not. Not applying its own standard with spaces. This is one of the sorts of things that Rich and others have gotten in trouble for so that bot should not be above reproach IMO. I also would like to note that although compromise is good, its not a one way street. Some of the minor edit police could learn to compromise a little too. Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- @Magioladitis: The problem we have before us is that Fram has been asked by multiple people to leave Rich alone. Fram has been told that if the problem is that serious, someone else will raise the issue with Rich. Rich has asked, in fact begged [10] for Fram to leave him alone. Yet, we have Fram being intractable and refusing to disengage. Both editors have their strengths and weaknesses. That's a given. As a project, we don't have to accept the drama/disruption being caused when these two editors interact. I have asked both editors to voluntarily agree to an interaction ban. With the diff I note above, Rich seems willing. But, a voluntary interaction ban can not work without both parties agreeing, and Fram refuses. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Of course Rich agrees, he can continue his editing with one person less to indicate where he violates guidelines time and time again. Perhaps we can propose an interaction ban between Rich and anyone who sees a problem with an edit he makes? Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just so we are crystal clear; Fram, a number of people (including at least one administrator) are asking you to disengage and you are refusing. Is this correct? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just so we are crystal clear: Rich Farmbrough was restricted, blocked, desysopped, and nearly banned, but looking into his edits once every three months and noting problems with it is the actual problem here? As for "including at least one administrator", I love your hypocritical comments (again); I thought you believed that admins weren't that important, and that "The highest 'rank' on Wikipedia is 'editor'."? User talk:Kumioko#On being an admin. Having said that, the number of people are the usual suspects and Jenks24, who states that "this keeps popping up on my watchlist" despite the last post I made here before this thread being from 1 June 2012. An interaction ban was proposed by Rich farmbrough at the ArbCom case, but not imposed by ArbCom. What has happened since then to make things different now? A return after three months, while you (Hammersoft) have opposed my actions and comments multiple times in the meantime in different discussions? If there is any wikihounding happening, it is you who is wikihounding me. I don't mind you doing this, it tells more about you than that it causes problems for me, but it makes your current request for this interaction ban rather cynical. Fram (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- If you believe I am wikihounding you, you are more than welcome to file a report to WP:AN/I. I am confident you can get me banned from the project. Now, to return to the point of this discussion rather than me; several editors have now asked you to disengage from Rich and walk away. Why is it impossible for you to do this? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just so we are crystal clear: Rich Farmbrough was restricted, blocked, desysopped, and nearly banned, but looking into his edits once every three months and noting problems with it is the actual problem here? As for "including at least one administrator", I love your hypocritical comments (again); I thought you believed that admins weren't that important, and that "The highest 'rank' on Wikipedia is 'editor'."? User talk:Kumioko#On being an admin. Having said that, the number of people are the usual suspects and Jenks24, who states that "this keeps popping up on my watchlist" despite the last post I made here before this thread being from 1 June 2012. An interaction ban was proposed by Rich farmbrough at the ArbCom case, but not imposed by ArbCom. What has happened since then to make things different now? A return after three months, while you (Hammersoft) have opposed my actions and comments multiple times in the meantime in different discussions? If there is any wikihounding happening, it is you who is wikihounding me. I don't mind you doing this, it tells more about you than that it causes problems for me, but it makes your current request for this interaction ban rather cynical. Fram (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just so we are crystal clear; Fram, a number of people (including at least one administrator) are asking you to disengage and you are refusing. Is this correct? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Of course Rich agrees, he can continue his editing with one person less to indicate where he violates guidelines time and time again. Perhaps we can propose an interaction ban between Rich and anyone who sees a problem with an edit he makes? Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really like this discussion because it looks like a WP:BATTLE and Wikipedia is not (should not be) a battleground. I am one the supporters that small changes should be done but I made a lot of effort to satisfy those who disagree. Rich has been one of the pioneers in standardising things without checking it cost in number of edits and I admire this. Without Rich we wouldn't have standardise the WikiProjects for instance. Even worse, the names of many tags would have remained unreadable. On the other hand Fram has been always very good in finding bug mistakes in scripts, AWB, etc. Even better he does a very good use of AWB to make his life and our life easier. Conclusion: I like to cooperate with both of them and I don't like a discussion like this one. If we isolate the discussion on the section headers Rich is wrong, at least IMO. Mediawiki adds headers with spaces if someone presses "New section" on the top. If Rich wants us to move to the other direction (I have no strong feelings on either way) then he will have to change the way Mediawiki adds headers and ask the bot operator of the bot adding spaces in headers (I don't recall its name right now. Misabot?) to at least doing it. Many of us do small edits but these edits aim to a certain target: At some point 99.9% of the pages will have our style because there is a (clear) consensus for that. What Rich does with header spaces has no chance right now. OK, I know that some of you think that this is not the point of this discussion and the discussion but whatever. I don't agree with Rich ban and I have expressed that in many ways but on the other hand I can't just stay and see an endless edit war with no future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fram, can you give one good reason why you introduced a white space between section headers and content here and here when the formatting choices were consistent within the articles before you changed them? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Kumioko, have you actually compared the MOS I linked above with the edits Rich Farmbrough makes? This has nothing to do with what is allowed manually but not by automation. This type of edits, i.e. adding or removing whitespace from (some) headers when another style was used in the article, isn't allowed at all. It is also utterly pointless. It is not difficult to stop making such edits. So can you give one good reason why he continued making them anyway? Fram (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposed interaction ban
Fram & Rich, I am asking you both to voluntarily agree to an interaction ban between the two of you. This means you stop posting to each other's talk pages, you stop following each other's edits, and you stop entering into discussions where you have no vested interest and the other party is involved. Please indicate your acceptance or refusal. If refusal, please indicate why. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree and I have asked for that multiple times in the past but Fram feels its his perosnal mission to be the minor edit police and refuses to drop the sticks and let it go. That's what makes me so angry about the whole situation is that here you have this Admin hounding another editor and no one can or will do anything about it. If it is such a major problem then why is it always the same 2 or 3 editors? If its a major problem with these edits he should have people lining up to complain. And we as editors and Wikipedians will complain if something bothers us. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No. If Rich doesn't want me posting here, he can just follow our policies and guidelines instead of continously ignoring and violating them, even after they have been pointed out and explained multiple times. If you two don't want me posting here, start mentoring Rich Farmbrough, try to get him to him follow our guidelines and policies, see to it that he edits like every editor is supposed to. And Kumioko, please drop the hyperbole. If it was such a major problem, we would be at ANI or at ArbCom enforcement. I am here because it is a real, recurring, but relatively minor problem, and because I am one of the editors who is aware that this is one established editor whose edits need scrutiny, though thanks to the restrictions less than it used to be. Closing my eyes and ignoring problems because I have noticed too many other similar problems in the past is not helping things. If I would have been consistenly (instead of occasionally) wrong in my remarks and in the errors, problems, or policy violations I pointed out, then there would be a case for an interaction ban. If I was opposing Rich Farmbrough at all kinds of discussions, just for the sake of it, then there would be a case for an interaction ban. But asking for an interaction ban just because I do what I am supposed to do, is not helpful in the least, and not very convincing coming from two heavily involved editors. Fram (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- If there is an editor who is heavily involved, it is you Fram. You are the #3 editor to this talk page. Look, you are not Rich's personal mentor. You are not an assigned police officer whose beat it is to follow Rich. You've been asked to drop the sticks and walk away, but apparently still feel it is your duty to police his actions. Why? Is there no other person on the project who can police his actions? Are you the sole person who has the time, tools, and willingness to police his actions? Why is it necessary that this falls to you? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, I a not his mentor. But perhaps it would be better if one of you would be, instead of continuing with the same very tired defense. Like I said above, I would be more than happy if you (plural) took over and kept an eye on his contributions, and recognized the problems with it as well as the value. Perhaps you will have more success in getting him to change his habits without needing long discussions, blocks, ANI and ArbCom cases, restrictions, ... Continued shooting of the messenger has failed as a tactic every time until now, and hasn't helped Rich Farmbrough one bit. Trying something different instead might work, but I see very little willingness from either of you to try this. Fram (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fram, I am not shooting you. Neither am I attempting some tired defense. Thank you. My point is you seem very focused on trying to change Rich, and unwilling to let go and walk away. If there is real damage occurring to the project, somebody else will step forward to address the issue. This does not require you. As Jenks24 notes below, it is time to disengage. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, I a not his mentor. But perhaps it would be better if one of you would be, instead of continuing with the same very tired defense. Like I said above, I would be more than happy if you (plural) took over and kept an eye on his contributions, and recognized the problems with it as well as the value. Perhaps you will have more success in getting him to change his habits without needing long discussions, blocks, ANI and ArbCom cases, restrictions, ... Continued shooting of the messenger has failed as a tactic every time until now, and hasn't helped Rich Farmbrough one bit. Trying something different instead might work, but I see very little willingness from either of you to try this. Fram (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- +1. I've tried not to comment here recently, but this keeps popping up on my watchlist. Fram, please disengage. You're doing more harm than good and there are literally thousands of other areas of the project where your time would be better spent. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just as a point of order, I want to make sure everyone here is aware that a user talk page discussion like this cannot compel something like an interaction ban. One can certainly be suggested, and if the parties agree to it implemented (because if they both agree to lay off, no need to get community approval for it), but if the party or parties don't agree here, if you want to try to compel such a ban you'll need to take it to AN(I). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I offered this solution years ago, I have begged, implored, requested, cajoled, encouraged, even become slightly incivil in my attempts to persuade Fram to disengage. And he has been asked by numerous people, in this and at least one other of his long running series of disputes all with the same author. I don't think anything will persuade him which is why I have given up trying. If however, someone else thinks he will listen to reason, they are certainly welcome to try. And of course should he give such an undertaking he is a perfect liberty to break it at any time, it is not binding - even within Wikipedia we tend to elevate our "decisions" far beyond any reason, as if we were playing a gigantic game of gnomic. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC).
- "Slightly incivil"? That's a mild understatement. "Numerous people" are those same three or so people turning a blind eye to problems that have seen one person banned and one de-adminned, restricted and nearly banned? Yep, I think I should really listen to their requests, they obviously defend our policies and guidelines in an impartial manner and represent community consensus. Or not. Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I come back to this page after several months of absence and it seems that there is a time-warp here. The same editor (um, admin) is still getting amazingly upset at Rich performing some very inconsequential edits. He objected, with some good reason, when Rich was making these changes in isolation. But now, it seems he's still complaining even though the inconsequential changes are now made in isolation of minor or significant edits. It seems clear to me now that there is something very personal and unhealthy about this interaction now. Both editors are amazingly good at what they do, except for their incessant feuding. I can understand how Rich feels like he's been continually hounded and harassed. Fram, please leave Rich alone. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Continually? Perhaps, if you come back after several months ofabsence, you should check first whether something has happened in your absence "continually", "occasionally", or "not at all". Secondly, I don't get "amazingly upset", I'm rather calm. I object to these edits no matter if they are made in isolation or not, they violate our MOS. While a number of interfering editors are making a fuss of this, Rich Farmbrough has changed his editing in this regard and is no longer changing the whitespace in headers, apart from a case where it was unbalanced (space at the front, not at the end) and where he was quite right to change it. The problem is that other people feel the need to turn this into a major thing, when if they would have left well alone, this would have been a very short and productive discussion; I remark on a problem in his edits, and he changes the way he edits. End of story. And considering this, I'll drop out of this totally unproductive meta-discussion, so that people's watchlist can cool off again. Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Get it right. We are talking about edits nobody cares about one way or another, except you. We're not the ones climbing the Reichstag. "interfering editors are making a fuss". The hell it's not personal. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 09:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- @Fram; There would not be a "major" thing if you had dropped the stick and walked away, as a number of editors have asked you to do now. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Continually? Perhaps, if you come back after several months ofabsence, you should check first whether something has happened in your absence "continually", "occasionally", or "not at all". Secondly, I don't get "amazingly upset", I'm rather calm. I object to these edits no matter if they are made in isolation or not, they violate our MOS. While a number of interfering editors are making a fuss of this, Rich Farmbrough has changed his editing in this regard and is no longer changing the whitespace in headers, apart from a case where it was unbalanced (space at the front, not at the end) and where he was quite right to change it. The problem is that other people feel the need to turn this into a major thing, when if they would have left well alone, this would have been a very short and productive discussion; I remark on a problem in his edits, and he changes the way he edits. End of story. And considering this, I'll drop out of this totally unproductive meta-discussion, so that people's watchlist can cool off again. Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I come back to this page after several months of absence and it seems that there is a time-warp here. The same editor (um, admin) is still getting amazingly upset at Rich performing some very inconsequential edits. He objected, with some good reason, when Rich was making these changes in isolation. But now, it seems he's still complaining even though the inconsequential changes are now made in isolation of minor or significant edits. It seems clear to me now that there is something very personal and unhealthy about this interaction now. Both editors are amazingly good at what they do, except for their incessant feuding. I can understand how Rich feels like he's been continually hounded and harassed. Fram, please leave Rich alone. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Slightly incivil"? That's a mild understatement. "Numerous people" are those same three or so people turning a blind eye to problems that have seen one person banned and one de-adminned, restricted and nearly banned? Yep, I think I should really listen to their requests, they obviously defend our policies and guidelines in an impartial manner and represent community consensus. Or not. Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I offered this solution years ago, I have begged, implored, requested, cajoled, encouraged, even become slightly incivil in my attempts to persuade Fram to disengage. And he has been asked by numerous people, in this and at least one other of his long running series of disputes all with the same author. I don't think anything will persuade him which is why I have given up trying. If however, someone else thinks he will listen to reason, they are certainly welcome to try. And of course should he give such an undertaking he is a perfect liberty to break it at any time, it is not binding - even within Wikipedia we tend to elevate our "decisions" far beyond any reason, as if we were playing a gigantic game of gnomic. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC).
Note
It has always seemed to me that there is a distinction between someone saying that something is a problem because it has caused them difficulties, and someone saying something is a problem because "it is". It has also seemed that there is a distinction in motivation between someone who happens across an edit and makes a query about it, compared with someone who inspects an editor's work looking for something to complain about, and then issues instructions. The fact that the complainant is wrong is really not too important. The basic problem is one of social ineptitude, in considering that it is either wise, useful or collegial to pursue this line.
While I am, for example, quite aware of what Fram is doing on Wikipedia, I deem it wise to let others deal with it at present, as they probably will in due course. This seems to me eminently sensible. Rich Farmbrough, 14:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC).
Considering that ignoring your (and your bots) edits lead to hundreds of errors staying on Wikipedia for months, it doesn't seem unreasonable to keep a closer eye on your edits once I was aware that they regularly were problematic.
Anyway, I just checked, and before this section, my last post here was on June 1, i.e. over 3 months ago. Does put the problems of my "wikihounding" into perspective. On the other hand, between June 1st and now, Hammersoft has entered discussions after or because I was there, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#User:Fram refusing to stop mass category creation while RfC is going onWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758#User:Alan Liefting again, and the Encyclopetey arbcom case. Practice what you preach? Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 September 2012
- From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes
- Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi
- Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial
- Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...
- Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
AWB bot request for Guyana
Please advise me on what is likely to happen to Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#AWB bot request for Guyana.
I have been working with another editor, improving the coverage of Guyana in a variety of ways, and now I am looking for some automated help on the templates. Early on I added a somewhat inadequate template, and have realized that a better one should be used. If this request works out, then I will be going on to more complicated ones. I changed the {{photoreq|in=Guyana}} to {{photoreq|people of Guyana}} by hand, because there were so few of them. I never did run that setup you provided for doing that kind of change for Texas.
I am sure you are enjoying your Wikipedia Editor hat. I keep hoping that mine will allow me to recruit a new editor, but so far no luck. If I converse with someone about it and they decide not to go forward even though they admit that the use it frequently, I do suggest that they donate. User Smallbones and I may organize an event here in Philadelphia, but for my own part, not likely before November 7. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I was of course delighted with the hat! As far as the bot request goes, they seem to be picked up in waves, and ignored in waves. It was indeed trying to clear this backlog that caused a little local difficulty. Nonetheless this is a simple request, and if someone does not pick it up before it archives, I suggest you simply re-submit it. Alternatively I could put together an AWB setting s file for you. Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC).
- Let's just wait a few days, and if I don't get a response, I will come back to you. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose that Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#AWB bot request for Guyana means that they archived my request without any response. It may be a simple request, so you can provide a settings file and whatever else I need to know to make it go on AWB. We can do it for Guyana, and then I will go on to Suriname and maybe elsewhere. I appreciate your help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Let's just wait a few days, and if I don't get a response, I will come back to you. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
@Rich: I would be extremely careful in proceeding with this. You know full well the lynch mob is waiting right outside your wikipedia-door ready to have you banned from the site for good. They previously sanctioned you because they thought two edits constituted automation. The extreme obtuseness demonstrated by this should be enough to convince you they will find a way to sanction you for creating an AWB settings file that someone else runs as a proxy for you. I would specifically, and directly, ask ArbCom permission to move forward on this. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: Ext links as file names
Could you restart the process (or ask someone else to restart it, if applicable) that you used to whittle down the User:Rich Farmbrough/temp1000 list? A lot of the members of Category:Articles with missing files are "missing" them only because of coding that automatically supplies "File:", thus breaking links because the images aren't entitled "File:File:". I've fixed one as an example. Seems to me that a bot, regardless of who runs it (are you now allowed to again? It seemed so, from your comments at the BOTR section), could easily check pages in the category to see which images would work properly if "File:" were removed. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not allowed, once upon a time I would have assumed that, this being Wikipedia, no one would really care as long as I wasn't breaking anything. This seems to be an outdated social model (the waterhole is poisoned, or, if you prefer, the first mover advantage benefits the less desirable attitudes).
- The issue you highlight is slightly confounded in that some templates may add File: and some may not, I haven't checked but I believe this is the case. Nonetheless it is worth producing a list and seeing how many items we get, then fixing them. Ideally the template code would handle both formats, come Lua that may be a realistic proposition.
- I will let you know how this progresses.
- Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC).
- Beriev Be-30 is an example. Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC).
- Don't understand how the Beriev Be-30 is an example of this, since the only broken image was in freestanding code; I'm talking about situations such as the "fixed one" link that I gave. I'm just looking for situations in which the system supplies the "File:" prefix but in which someone nevertheless types it, causing improper duplication. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- It's an example where "= File: " is actually correct. In this case
- Don't understand how the Beriev Be-30 is an example of this, since the only broken image was in freestanding code; I'm talking about situations such as the "fixed one" link that I gave. I'm just looking for situations in which the system supplies the "File:" prefix but in which someone nevertheless types it, causing improper duplication. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Beriev Be-30 is an example. Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC).
|image=File:Aeroflot Beriev Be-32.jpg
- Rich Farmbrough, 09:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC).
- Rich Farmbrough, 09:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC).
- I picked up 37 items, all should be fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC).
Nomination of Top ten albums for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Top ten albums is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top ten albums until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 September 2012
- From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook
- WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force
- Featured content: Go into the light
- Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Category:Occupy movement in Armenia
Category:Occupy movement in Armenia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Beatles RfC
Hello Rich Farmbrough; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
New dated category
Please see Category:Articles needing POV-check, which I created after a discussion on Template_talk:POV-check#Category_split_from_Disputed.3F. The structure might need some work to add the relevant monthly categories. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Pre-arbcom this would have been automatic of course. Rich Farmbrough, 21:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC).
Differentiating reference syntax in the editing window
Hi Rich-- based on the village pump discussion on giving reference syntax a unique color to differentiate from other text while editing, I've opened up an RfC to expand the audience on the topic. You are welcome to participate anytime. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
cheers
Thanks for edits in my article, I appreciate that. I also made some minor changes, removed a words such "dr", "honorable" any that contradicts to be encyclopedic. Any more suggestions regarding that? Cheers, Sausa (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed there are three bare link references
for example. They can be improved, ideally (in my opinion) by using a cite template such as {{Cite web}}
. Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC).
Thanks. Sorry, a bit lost here. So, for example, this source: http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/2011-03-31-07-00-04/11115-qarthvelebi-uckhoethshi-msoflio-toppianistebis-siashi-shesuli-qarthveli-pianisti-romis-papma-vatikanshi-miitsvia.html do I need to put it in this way and leave it just like that?: Template:Http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/2011-03-31-07-00-04/11115-qarthvelebi-uckhoethshi-msoflio-toppianistebis-siashi-shesuli-qarthveli-pianisti-romis-papma-vatikanshi-miitsvia.html I am sorry if I misunderstand you, would appreciate very much if you explain me more. Cheers, Sausa (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, something like
{{Cite web|url=http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/2011-03-31-07-00-04/11115-qarthvelebi-uckhoethshi-msoflio-toppianistebis-siashi-shesuli-qarthveli-pianisti-romis-papma-vatikanshi-miitsvia.html|title=ქართველები უცხოეთში. მსოფლიო ტოპპიანისტების სიაში შესული ქართველი პიანისტი რომის პაპმა ვატიკანში მიიწვია |author= |date=2012-02-02|accessdate=2012-09-22}} {{Ka icon}}
which will show as
"ქართველები უცხოეთში. მსოფლიო ტოპპიანისტების სიაში შესული ქართველი პიანისტი რომის პაპმა ვატიკანში მიიწვია". 2012-02-02. Retrieved 2012-09-22. Template:Ka icon
- Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC).
Awesome!!! Will do. Thanks! Sausa (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Purple star for Helpful Pixie Bot
I gave you're Helpful Pixie Bot a Purple star. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! The bot deserves it. Rich Farmbrough, 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC).
You've got mail
Message added 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Rcsprinter (babble) @ 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)
- To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here
This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!
View the full newsletter
|
---|
Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.
Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.
Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.
2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers. |
Please share your thoughts at the RfC.
--The Olive Branch 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
...for taking care of that while I was off working. I do get the occasional malicious stalker. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Borderline username?
Since you're already working to defuse the drama, I was wondering -- is that username OK? I thought it might have been an coincidence until I saw the first entry on their block log. I realize that this isn't de.wikipedia which has much stronger rules on this, but still seems rather off-color. a13ean (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, the fennec is a very popular animal to identify with. The choice of name is perhaps ill advised, but I don't think it is against policy. Rich Farmbrough, 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC).
The Signpost: 24 September 2012
- In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention
- Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012
- WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011
- News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal
- Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times
- Featured content: Dead as...
- Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Commons category
Hi, earlier this year you set up Category:Commons category template with no category set as a result of a discussion over problems with page moves. I was working through the articles in the category and a user has queried this indicating there was no consensus for routinely adding the article name (see here). Can you remember where the discussion was that started this? Thanks Keith D (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Probably Requests for Bot Work. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC).
Dispute Resolution RFC
Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 October 2012
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
- News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners
- Featured content: Mooned
- Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty
- WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
AWB module for date format alignment
Rich,
I would like to incorporate code into dmy code and mdy code to insert '{{use dmy dates}}' to signal that the article has been processed. Can you help?
More generally, I would appreciate any advice you could give in updating same. Thanks, -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 05:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I have some code for this. I'll try and dig it out. Rich Farmbrough, 14:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC).
- FYI, code I used most recently is here. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 15:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Energy resource facilities in the United States
Please see my proposal to upmerge Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States to Category: Energy infrastructure in the United States Hugo999 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 October 2012
- News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance
- WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography
- Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk
- Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
I hereby award you an honorary degree (in Authoritarianism) in recognition for your long term contributions to Wikipedia,you are making a difference in the world by serving the world with information....Please continue the hard work ! User:Elianamwiha * Elianamwiha 08:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much! Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC).
Maintenance counts
Hi, Rich! Hope you are doing fine.
Just wanted to let you know that there are over 1,500 articles in this category, yet this progress report starts from November, not October. I tried to fix it, but quickly got lost in the forest of template calls, so I'm passing this task into your capable hands :) (hoping you even care about this any more). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2012; 18:05 (UTC)
- Yes, the progress box template goes back 6 years (extended from 5 years). Unfortunately, this template, like several hundred others I wrote, requires admin access to edit. Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC).
- Fixed Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC).
- Thank you, sir!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 16, 2012; 19:25 (UTC)
- Fixed Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC).
Chicago article
I believe you put up a reference tag on the article for Chicago (band) in February, 2010. I cleaned it up some and perhaps you want to look in to see if the tag can be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wemonk (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is Exxolon. I suspect the other is someone else too. My bot merely dated the tags. However they can be removed at any editor's discretion. Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC).
Also reference tag for April 2008 appears to be yours as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wemonk (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:Ref web has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 04:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Digimon Fusion characters
Hi Rich; I fixed up all ten of the double redirects that you found - but in four cases I didn't use the section name that you requested, because it doesn't exist. Hopefully I picked the correct ones in replacement - if any were wrong, please reopen the request(s). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Really they should not be protected, then the bots would take care of it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC).
Thank you for your interest in meta:Wikimedia Medicine. We hope to create a non profit corporation to promote the aims of the Wikimedia Movement within the topic domain of medicine. This means we plan to promote the creation and release of "health care information in all languages" under an open license. This will be done primarily via speaking and collaborating with both individuals and organizations who share our goal. We are working on a number of collaborations already and are open to more ideas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Message
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The Signpost: 15 October 2012
- In the media: Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page
- Featured content: Second star to the left
- News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks
- Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
An article you worked on has been nominated for deletion
MG Services has been nomiated for deletion. If you would like to comment on the discussion, it is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MG Services ColtsScore (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:Albums category
Hi Rich. I noticed you recently edited Template:Albums category. If you have time, do you think you might be able to have a look at the "extra space" issue identified on the template's talk page? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Image use in WP
Hi Rich, I was wondering if you could help me. I've been running a couple of workshops in London for people who've given us money and are also willing to give us some time, and I think I've established that people are willing to donate an afternoon to WP, but not necessarily more. That might still be worthwhile if we can give them something where 5 minutes of setup can get them doing a couple of hours useful work. And for people who don't fancy adding referenced material the biggest and quickest wow is to add a picture to an article that doesn't have one. Every time I get a workshop to choose which image to use to illustrate an article everyone livens up and is happy to make a call.
But manually hunting for articles without images is time consuming. So I was wondering if you could create a list here or on Commons of wikipedia articles of English villages or anything with a UK geocode that don't have an image in the article, then we can search Commons and because of the Geograph more often than not add an image.
Alternatively a list on Commons of En Wiki articles that don't have an image but have an intrawiki link to an article in a different language that does have an image. ϢereSpielChequers 21:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Check random articles in Categories of Category:England geography stubs such as Great Smeaton, Kilby Bridge. Perhaps ask people attending which county they come from and then find a place and add the map based on it's coordinated. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 22:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, but many of them have images already. I'm looking to get lists of articles which lack images. ϢereSpielChequers 22:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm creating an ad-hoc list now. Rich Farmbrough, 01:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
- User:Rich Farmbrough/temp 110 Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
- That's brilliant - I'll go and organise another workshop! Mind you there are only about 1500, and though that will certainly keep me going a while, I wonder if in future it will be possible to find more? For example Towns and villages in county etc without an image? ϢereSpielChequers 14:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes there's a deeper problem here, User:Dthomsen8 has been working on it, and got me involved at Wikimania. Unfortunately my hands are somewhat tied. Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
- Yes there's a deeper problem here, User:Dthomsen8 has been working on it, and got me involved at Wikimania. Unfortunately my hands are somewhat tied. Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
- That's brilliant - I'll go and organise another workshop! Mind you there are only about 1500, and though that will certainly keep me going a while, I wonder if in future it will be possible to find more? For example Towns and villages in county etc without an image? ϢereSpielChequers 14:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- User:Rich Farmbrough/temp 110 Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks for that, especially if that was a sufficiently useful list to get you close to dangerous territory. Yes I'll talk to Dthomsen, alternatively would you be able to produce such lists on Commons as opposed to here? There is some logic to that - for starters if we use the intrawiki route then this could be used to add images to whatever language people are comfortable with. I just need lists of Interwiki connected clusters where one or more articles have an image from commons and one or more has no images. ϢereSpielChequers 15:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Please help improve Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012
over/underlinking
Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked_--_can_we_bring_this_to_closure.3F
The "one link" rule/enforcement has gotten out of hand, I'm trying to get something closer to rationality. You seem to be one of the people with a "middle ground" view, and I'd appreciate any refinements to the proposal. If teh proposed draft replacement at the top of the page is something you'd support, I'd appreciate it if you could leave a note. Thanks Boundlessly (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 October 2012
- Special report: Examining adminship from the German perspective
- Arbitration report: Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban; motion to change "net four votes" rule
- Technology report: Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced
- Discussion report: Good articles on the main page?; reforming dispute resolution
- News and notes: Wikimedians get serious about women in science
- WikiProject report: Where in the world is Wikipedia?
- Featured content: Is RfA Kafkaesque?
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
An award from us (and the signpost :-) )
The Signpost Barnstar | ||
This month the Signpost said that the Gibraltar project was a " ludicrously productive GLAM project". Thank you for helping us, Rich, with that achievement. We have got behind with the barnstars so this is one to say thank you for helping. Gibraltarpedia.org is now showing the list of about 100 plaques - do take a look and see the languages we will be featuring.Victuallers (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC) |
T'library
Hi Rich. I saw this and wondered if you knew about this. I stumbled over the latter by accident and, although it risks getting outdated, it is a phenomenal resource. (A couple of people have updated it but I don't think it gets actively tended.) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes the resource available in total is huge. I have access to various "restricted" collections, and some little skill, I like to think, in finding public versions of other work. Nonetheless scientific research will be very much easier when the UK and EU open research priorities come into play. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
No inline citation tag
Can you peek at James W. Booth and Charles F. Tabor and Roswell A. Parmenter and Isaac V. Baker Jr. and help decide whether the {{no footnotes|date=October 2012}} tag should be in the article or not. I have been adding them, then removing them as I switch to in-line citations. The creator of the articles has been removing infoboxes and reverting the inline citations as in Alfred Wagstaff Jr. I remove the tag when I change the general references to inline citations so that each fact has a reference, but I need them so I know which ones to go back to later. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well I think that is tangential to any real issues between the two editors. You need to resolve these issues not worry about the
{{No footnotes}}
template. (Were it just the template I would say simply keep a list of the articles to enable productivity in place of strife.) There are a few issues that I would draw to your attention, though I expect you are both familiar with them:- General references are good.
- There is no need to source every single fact if there is a clear attribution.
- Inline references are also good, and can be added to an article with general references.
- Wikipedia prefers articles to be based on multiple sources, where possible
- Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC).
Merge discussion for Kuliglig
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kuliglig , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Image2012 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be better to do so. Image2012 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Cite_quick TfD result was Keep, in use
Unlike the prior TfD for Template:Fcite, the result for Template:Cite_quick, on 21 October was "Keep" with no restrictions (none of the keep-don't-use nonsense), and other users have put {cite_quick} in articles. I restored it into "Julian Assange" to reduce edit-preview from 39 to 8 seconds! If I had not studied the template-timing issues, I would not even believe it can reformat in 8 seconds now (slow templates using 32 seconds can drag to 39-60 on a busy server). I had to use {cite_quick} to rescue mega-article "Barack Obama" which crashed half-page, often as fatal timeout with wp:Wikimedia Foundation error, and that rescue had triggered the latest TfD now stopped. Other people saw the rapid speed, and refused deletion of {cite_quick}. Hostile opponent User:Br'er Rabbit (aka fictional "Jack Merridew") was blocked 48h for edit-war on {Civility}, then sock-puppet SP/I led to indef-block, and many editors imposed community ban. Lua script-writer, opponent User:Uncle_G (contribs) disappeared 11 September 2012, and I had to finish the Lua-based cite templates on test2.wiki, which are even faster than {cite_quick}. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good, I'm sure the Lua version will resolve many problems. I am not surprised at all at the efficiency gains. You should know, by the way, that Br'er rabbit is also a fictional character. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC).
Msg
Hi, I sent you a reply some days ago, please check you wiki-mail. Thank you! Elitre (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK
Rich,
Would you like to mosey over to DYK Right About Here and add to the conversation inspired by you? Personally, I'm getting a little sick of "...over on Jimbo Wales' page..." Bring it home to us, Rich. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Have done. :). Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC).
Talkback
Message added 09:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ToniSant (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I note your comment on my talk page. With respect, I suggest that the other edits made at the same time by this editor suggest that your assessment of this edit is at least questionable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Help to get a copy of Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012
Please help get at least the latest copy of this article before it was deleted: Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012 It was a lot of work. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilogin123 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you ask at WP:REFUND. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 06:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC).
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Crunkcore, Talk:Kesha/Archive 4, Talk:Kesha/Archive 2". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 22:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback 30 Oct
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Redrose64 (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Redrose64 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
October 2012
Hello, I'm TruPepitoM. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to 4987 Flamsteed because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 23:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 October 2012
- News and notes: First chickens come home to roost for FDC funding applicants; WMF board discusses governance issues and scope of programs
- WikiProject report: In recognition of... WikiProject Military History
- Technology report: Improved video support imminent and Wikidata.org live
- Featured content: On the road again
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
The Original Barnstar | ||
Dear Rich, well done for contributing over a million edits to the English language Wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 13:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you - and well spotted, I thought that day was still a way off. Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC).
A cheeseburger for you!
Thank u for your efforts vis-a-vis Penyulap! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC) |
- Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC).
Howdy chief. This RfD relates to a set of redirects you created in 2006. - TB (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I just made an discovery about that redirect, that I posted to it's RFD, that answers your question about why nobody has written article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Note
Bish, Elen, Rich: I've been trying to work out in my head how to say this, hoping to formulate something especially enlightened, pithy, succinct or compelling. Having crossed paths with all of you all overs the years, I've developed appreciation and respect for your efforts here. Seeing this develop has been like watching the beginning of a car crash: you see it develop, you know it's going to be bad, and there doesn't seem like there's a damn thing you can do to stop it. The best I've come up with is:
You're all acting like idiots, please stop.
I don't see specific enumeration, or relative ranking of your recent missteps, as a useful exercise. Penyulap was blocked by Coren back in July, followin an ANI discussion, so the good or bad of the block is on him. Whether or not Penyulap's talk page access is enabled isn't really significant to Wikpedia - the Encyclopedia. It's not that important, and certainly not important enough for ya'll to be at each other's throats. You all are hereby banned by the Ent from interacting with each other for a week or so, or until your brains return to their usually rational state. This ban will not be enforced by blocks, threats or noticeboard dramas, but rather (hopefully) by their being enough sanity in your respective brains to see the wisdom in what a very old Ent is sayin. Nobody Ent 15:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hooom now. I was being rather un-hasty in trying to unwind the sanctions a little at a time. It took longer than I ever expected. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
- It's been suggested by Bish & Elen that I'm not being helpful so I am redirecting my wiki-efforts elsewhere. Nobody Ent 22:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
{{Tbullet}}
...is a great template. Thanks.
It's not important at all, but I thought I'd let you know that it's broken by {{u}} - I'd fix it but my templating skills aren't good enough to debug the problem.
Expected:
Actual:
Best, — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
- Fixed, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Great! (To both of you!) Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
List of Net channels AFD
Hi, Rich. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. If interested, see also a new AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration enfiorcement
I have started a discussion about your apparent violation of your arbcom imposed restrictions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough. Note that the case also mentions that the alleged arbcom restriction violations are also clear violations of your indefinite Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Fram (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well of course you have. Rich Farmbrough, 14:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
Re: Recruitment policy RFC
FYI: I replied to your comments on the recruitment policy RFC. --EpochFail(talk|work) 14:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
Several articles
Heyo. You may wish to re-write your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 November 5#Template:This template is used in several articles, as the template is not intended to ever be used in articles, but merely as an info/warning ombox in Template: namespace. It and its main alias ({{SA}}) are transcluded in 117 instances (as template-documentation). ;) —Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes...... your nomination said "all templates are in use on several articles"... maybe I need to work on my material. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
In re Penyulap
Copied and undented from Penyulap's talk page; that isn't the place for this. — Coren (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Nice to see you are prejudging the ombudsman complaint. But once the ombudsman complaint has been made, Courcelles should not be taking additional admin actions against the complainant. We have over 1,000 admins only a handful count as involved. And it would be bad enough if there was cause for the block, but clearly there isn't, which makes it look like a revenge block. That's why I describe it as a monumental gaffe. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
- I'm not prejudging it; there is nothing to prejudge. The ombudsman commission handles very exactly one thing: violations of the privacy policy, and no violation of that policy has even been alleged. In fact, the "complaint" not only doesn't state what it's supposed to be about (except the block, which has nothing to do with the ombudsmen at all), it doesn't even name Courcelles!
I don't believe for a minute that you could be suggesting seriously that an administrator should be automatically considered WP:INVOLVED as soon as someone makes some vague complaint, regardless of merit or relevance. This isn't about propriety and involvement, it's about wanting to disqualify an administrator whose decision you find disagreeable; the putative email to the ombudsmen commission is just a pretext. — Coren (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not really vague, it has always been accepted that checkuser is not to be used gratuitously, as it is an invasion of privacy. This is just such a gratuitous use. The argument that it was slap-dash just makes it worse. The complaint is clearly not about the block, but the use of checkuser.
- And yes certainly Courcelles is the only admin Penyulap has complained about and suddenly he is blocking? He should know better. There are other reasons Courcelles should be recusing himself from dealing with Penyulap, which he is aware of.
- I'm not sure why people have it in for Pen, and I have not commented on your block, nor indeed examined the circumstances, but almost every other sanction I have looked at has been without reasonable foundation.
- This constitutes in my eyes bullying and possibly discrimination too. And yes I certainly find that disagreeable. Rich Farmbrough, 01:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- Allright; you appear sincere, so I want to understand what you mean. How exactly is a normal sock sweep an invasion of privacy? I mean, yes – it reveals some technical information to the checkuser that can lead to a geographical location if they care to look it up (which is by no means habitual) – but the point is just "what other accounts are operated by this user, if any?" This is hardly gratuitous or unusual in the case of someone who has operated alternate accounts in the past; and Penyulap actually claimed he would sock around the block (whether in earnest or as a jest is unclear). — Coren (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's one of the reasons we don't do sock sweeps. We have a process where someone has to present a prima facie case that socking is going on, before a CU will look use the CU function. Arbitrators (or other check-users) are not supposed to go on fishing expeditions, (but they do, as we have recently discovered). From information leaked by people "doing their Wiki duty" I could, if I wished, almost certainly identify a number of editors, so this is not merely a hypothetical.
- But for the purposes of this exercise, all you need to be convinced of is that there is a reasonable chance that Pen is making a serious complaint. At that point the person he is complaining about needs to disengage from admin actions.
- I do not necessarily expect that Pen will, even if given the chance, even if he asks for an unblock, return to editing. And of course it is possible that if that happens he will be re-blocked. Yet I still think it is important that we really attempt to observe the types of protocols that work well elsewhere for matters like conflict of interest, for situations where we are incurring legal and moral responsibilities, for actions that do not fall within BRD. (And this is not a bright line, a few years ago admins would reverse each other's blocks and neither think anything of it. Now people get sniffy if you undelete a page, without great discussion, and make claims of wheel warring and the like.) But having a reliable trustworthy regulatory apparatus allows the day to day operation to be faster, more dynamic and (apparently) risk taking - without risking anything that can't be simply fixed (except perhaps dented egos - which should be checked at the edit button anyway). Rich Farmbrough, 04:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- Sorry if I rambled a bit, but it's very late. Rich Farmbrough, 04:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- Sorry if I rambled a bit, but it's very late. Rich Farmbrough, 04:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- Allright; you appear sincere, so I want to understand what you mean. How exactly is a normal sock sweep an invasion of privacy? I mean, yes – it reveals some technical information to the checkuser that can lead to a geographical location if they care to look it up (which is by no means habitual) – but the point is just "what other accounts are operated by this user, if any?" This is hardly gratuitous or unusual in the case of someone who has operated alternate accounts in the past; and Penyulap actually claimed he would sock around the block (whether in earnest or as a jest is unclear). — Coren (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:AN discussion
I have started a discussion at WP:AN#Rich Farmbrough's editing restriction. Fram (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Block
The community has restricted you per the following: Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. [11] [12] is a clear violation of that restriction, as there is no prior approval. Accordingly, I have blocked you for two weeks, since you were already blocked for one week in September 2011 for violating this restriction. The rationale behind this restriction is the same rationale behind the automation restriction: complaints regarding mistakes such as inappropriate tagging, requiring users to check over your work.
For the record, [13] is highly inappropriate as a personal attack, and your battleground mentality at Courcelles' talk page is also worrisome (there is a difference between discussion and badgering). However, I did not factor either of those into the block. Also for the record, I haven't taken the time to figure out who Penyulap is, so I have no opinion in that matter. --Rschen7754 09:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- So it took you four minutes to research this? Deliberative indeed. Including the time to type the, message it must have taken you maybe 30 seconds?
- Rich Farmbrough, 10:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- I actually typed it up in a sticky note beforehand and copied and pasted it here after the block. --Rschen7754 10:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Before the ANI/I was posted? Nice. Rich Farmbrough, 10:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- Ah I beg your pardon. It was Fram that waited until the discussion was well underway before notifying me. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- Ah I beg your pardon. It was Fram that waited until the discussion was well underway before notifying me. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- Before the ANI/I was posted? Nice. Rich Farmbrough, 10:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- I actually typed it up in a sticky note beforehand and copied and pasted it here after the block. --Rschen7754 10:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Tough break, Rich. Once the pitchforks are out and flaming torches lit, they're never put away again. Personally I don't have a problem with adding WikiProject banners to the talk pages of relevant articles; and if the talk page needs to be created in so doing, then I don't hesitate. They're even sniffing around me now, claiming "the surprising rate (several edits on different articles per minute sometimes)" with no basis in fact (I've never done more than three edits in one minute, and rarely manage even two). So if I'm under scrutiny for my edit rate, what hope is there for any serious WP:GNOME? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree and unfortunately it was just a matter of time before someone found a reason, valid or otherwise to block you Rich. Its unfortunate to say but this is a large part of the reason I am not around anymore. I only wanted to comment here because of how stupendously stupid and petty the block was and I hope they (Fram, Rschen and Arbcom) are watching. Stupid blocks like this for petty reasons by people who do very little. Hundreds of thousands of edits a month now fail to be done because you and your bots are blocked and or restricted thanks to the "Wisdom" of Arbcom and a couple of their lackies. I hate to sound like a pessimist or a Redrose, they comment about anyone who does volume edits. Fram and a few others are systematically eliminating any editor who does volume edits for any reason they can find and its one of the many movements that is killing the pedia....systematically, deliberately and maliciously and no (Fram, Rschen and Arbcom) I am not going to "take it back" as an 8 year old would ask me to do (probably while puting and stomping their foot too I might add). I mean and believe what I said. Kumioko (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
<meh> If I was Rschen I would probably have thought I needed blocking. Rschen was doubtless biased by my calling out of Courcelles on his WP:INVOLVED block of Penyulap, but nonetheless can't be faulted for not knowing that Fram regularly attacks me using AN , AN/I, ARbcom and anything else he can. Nor could he be expected to know that the editing restriction is under dispute, and I had served notice that I was going to start addressing some of these historical anomalies.
It is certainly true that I won't be able to request administrator intervention in the case of Courcelles/Penyulap, so that is a shame. While Wikipedia is innovative, we have many of the characteristics of previous organisations, including documented cases of "bad eggs" in Arbcom, so why we think we should be free of people simply making wrong decisions based on prejudice and lack of application is a mystery.
I do think it is not a good idea to block an established editor who has only had 3 minutes notice of a discussion.
Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- I had originally posted a variant this on a user talk page, last spring, but I think it applies here and to some other long time users, so I've essified it. Please see Pioneers. Nobody Ent 13:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, except that is a perspective, and hence distorting. Every stage of development good stuff is introduced, but due to lack of systems thinking the total effect is always more regulation, and generally more scope for incompetence and corruption. Thus when Wikipedia as a community was almost entirely on-wiki, there were still outrageous behaviours, but "by their fruits" you could know them. This, for example, was why well-behaved socks of banned users were widely tolerated. Nonetheless there were cases where the community felt it needed a decision making body, and a reasonably good stab was the original arbcom - I was never particularly interested in sanctioning other users, so I didn't follow the development, and only a year or so ago discovered the horrors of the Mantemorland case (where Arbcom went to town on the good guy and let the socking COI guy carry on). This was exposed by detailed work by a number of users - and the Arbcom mailing list of the time later leaked, making them (with notable exceptions) look even worse. Had the bulk of this discussion taken place on-wiki (as it could have) there is a good chance this foolishness could have been averted, and, even if it had not, no one would have been able to say "it was obvious I would have told you" - moreover the unwise remarks made in the ostensible private mailing list would probably not have been made in public. This was the highest profile and highest level cock-up, but we also had some other biggies like essjay and rlevese (the latter which we totally failed as a community to handle in a human way). These matters are all different but they share commonality:
- Process before people
- Lack of openness
- Jumping to conclusions
- These are all things that have happened in pioneer societies, just less so. Hmm... just had a thought... I know that name. Rich Farmbrough, 14:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- AH yes, one of the twin gods of USRD. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- The whole situation makes me quite angry frankly. That two established editors and admins should know better than to do this sort of foolishness and be allowed to get away with it. Just more drama from USRD members. If a regular editor did this sort of crap they would be scolded and blocked but because they are admins they are allowed to do whatever they want and all people say are, well they are admins so they must be right. Hogwash. This is why I quite editing and retired. Good luck Rich, I wish I could do something to help but at this point this system is hopelessly degraded to the point where Arbcom and rogue admins like Fram and Rschen have gotten too much control and editors are just a nuisance that needs to be blocked so that the admins will have a little less work to do. Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yep I wouldn't want to characterize Rschen as a bad guy, just over hasty. Block now ask questions later. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- Yep I wouldn't want to characterize Rschen as a bad guy, just over hasty. Block now ask questions later. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- The whole situation makes me quite angry frankly. That two established editors and admins should know better than to do this sort of foolishness and be allowed to get away with it. Just more drama from USRD members. If a regular editor did this sort of crap they would be scolded and blocked but because they are admins they are allowed to do whatever they want and all people say are, well they are admins so they must be right. Hogwash. This is why I quite editing and retired. Good luck Rich, I wish I could do something to help but at this point this system is hopelessly degraded to the point where Arbcom and rogue admins like Fram and Rschen have gotten too much control and editors are just a nuisance that needs to be blocked so that the admins will have a little less work to do. Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- AH yes, one of the twin gods of USRD. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC).
- Yes, except that is a perspective, and hence distorting. Every stage of development good stuff is introduced, but due to lack of systems thinking the total effect is always more regulation, and generally more scope for incompetence and corruption. Thus when Wikipedia as a community was almost entirely on-wiki, there were still outrageous behaviours, but "by their fruits" you could know them. This, for example, was why well-behaved socks of banned users were widely tolerated. Nonetheless there were cases where the community felt it needed a decision making body, and a reasonably good stab was the original arbcom - I was never particularly interested in sanctioning other users, so I didn't follow the development, and only a year or so ago discovered the horrors of the Mantemorland case (where Arbcom went to town on the good guy and let the socking COI guy carry on). This was exposed by detailed work by a number of users - and the Arbcom mailing list of the time later leaked, making them (with notable exceptions) look even worse. Had the bulk of this discussion taken place on-wiki (as it could have) there is a good chance this foolishness could have been averted, and, even if it had not, no one would have been able to say "it was obvious I would have told you" - moreover the unwise remarks made in the ostensible private mailing list would probably not have been made in public. This was the highest profile and highest level cock-up, but we also had some other biggies like essjay and rlevese (the latter which we totally failed as a community to handle in a human way). These matters are all different but they share commonality:
- There are days when I regret my decision to retire from editing. Today was not one of them! In fact it solidified in my mind that the decision was the right one. With the situation you now face and the attitude of other editors about your grievace crimes of performing edits, I have truly seen that this place is no longer a good place to spend my time. I still very much believe in the project, however the beauracracy and process before people (or rather in my opinion process over pedia) mentality is going to and is, destroying the site. Good luck to you. I am not going to keep commenting because no one cares and they seem to have it in their head to block you or ban you at all costs regardless of what other policies are broken by the admins with that goal. Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- In all the excitement, some of us may have been mislead. While we may disagree with Rschen's actions, I agree with Rich that it is Fram's behaviour that is most disturbing. Fram raised a case against Rich at WP:AE, and the case was rejected. Before that case was even closed, Fram opened a new case against Rich at WP:AN, and only notified him of it 3 minutes before he was blocked. (The excuse was that Fram "forgot" it was "separate", even when they opened the new section on the new noticeboard themselves.)
- Fram's not just finished with Rich, though. At the same time, Fram was also opening a proposal on WT:DYK (later moved to WP:AN) to ban another prolific content contributor, Laura Hale, from her main activity and the area she was advised to concentrate on in her last editor review. This nasty and vindictive proposal did not gain community support.
- It seems like, if Fram can't get one person blocked, Fram goes after that person another way. And anyway, Fram goes after multiple people all at the same time - throw enough mud, and some will stick!
- Fram, are you prepared to ask for the community's confidence in your continuing to hold administrator privileges on this project?
- If not, please would you explain your reasons for not doing so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see what further discussion would have done - it was a clear violation of the sanctions placed on you by the community. All that further discussion has done has given Kumioko another opportunity to further his vendetta against WP:USRD - which is neither here nor there, because USRD isn't connected to this block or the circumstances surrounding this block at all. I may be a prominent member, but I am not USRD, and USRD is not me, and none of the USRD prominent members (2/3 of which are non-admins by the way) are drama-generators as Kumioko claims. --Rschen7754 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think the language of the sanctions matches the old offenses. I do not think your interpretation of the sanctions language now matches the intention of the sanctions. I do not think that adding templates to (created) talk pages rises to the level of creating incorrect categories: extent of harm matters. I think fast manual editing should not be punished. And I think that error rate should be considered: IMHO, <2% is satisfactory. Jurisprudence, and that's what it is, requires more than the narrowest reading. That's what discussion would have brought to the table. I shall not pursue this further, but I wanted to make those few points clear, away from the clutter of the discussion elsewhere. --Lexein (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Rschen
- If we had had the discussion you might have benefitted from it, rather than making assumptions. Always "better jaw jaw than war war". For example it is not a community restriction it is arbitrarily imposed by one editor. And I doubt it was intended to apply to talk pages or welcoming new users. To assume that you know everything about long running disputes based on a few lines of biased text is a mistake.
- And doubtless I shouldn't have raised USRD, but there is no doubt that many "fellow Americans"[Reply to Rshen 1] have treated Kumioko despicably, I am glad to hear that USRD members were not among their number.
- I'm sure there will be no more drama-generating accusations of Kumioko having a "vendetta". And no more WP:OWNy approaches such as you made previously on my talk page. And no more WP:OWNy (and ABF)statements such as "I've seen instances where they try to claim our FAs but not our stubs, when they haven't even done any work on the FAs to begin with." Or decisions about banning users made within the USRD project.
- But laying that aside (and I'm glad I reminded myself of these facts) there is certain irony in being blocked by an editor who may be WP:INVOLVED because he chose to intervene where I was calling another out on making a WP:INVOLVED block. And in the above section I mention why we need to be careful making blocks where WP:INVOLVED is an issue, firstly we must not be knowingly biased, secondly we must not be seen to be biased, and thirdly we must not be unconsciously biased. As I said in the other matter, there are over 1000 admins who are not involved. In future it would be wise to let one of them make the block instead of making it yourself.
- Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- I'm sorry, but how was I involved? I have only been involved in either situation in the administrative role, which is permissible per WP:INVOLVED. --Rschen7754 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh? So if you had not been an admin you wouldn't have commented? Your morals are predicated on your role? I take a different approach, however lofty Courcelles role, and however humble an editor I may be (and however much I find him likeable) I will not stand idly by while he makes a massive gaffe, that unfairly blocks another user. And leaping to the defence of a poor oppressed arbitrator, who is apparently cut to ribbons by my simply stating facts and offering advice may be all well and laudable, but to retroactively claim that you had your "admin hat" on (which again means you should think about what you are doing) is stretching a point.
- I don't really mind that you blocked me, but you could at least take on board a little free advice for the future.
- Don't jump in to situations you have only the faintest idea about.
- Think about not just your doubtless pure intentions, but how it will seem to others.
- All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- The issue isn't that you brought up a concern, the issue is that you were quite disruptive after it, posting section after section, post after post, without waiting for a reply. It was so bad that I was leaving a gentle note to begin with, which I would have escalated to a warning and then a block. Note that I haven't gone and blocked Bishonen, for example. There's plenty of people who are willing to take up your position in a more respectful manner; drop the stick and back away, please. The other issue is that it's obvious that you have an ax to grind against ArbCom; I've seen it on virtually all the drama boards. I don't believe in blindly endorsing all that ArbCom does (I have been sanctioned by ArbCom in the distant past) but this battleground mentality that you have is beyond the pale. --Rschen7754 01:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have a battleground mentality - and is it not useful to ascribe one to me. Nor do I have an axe to grind against arbcom. I take issue with much of the way it is set up, partly for reasons of governance, one of which is the matter of checkuser privileges, which is open to abuse. I should point out that quite a number of previous members of arbcom have been shown to have feet of clay in very public fora, and if you look at the leaked arbcom mailing list with phrases like "any member of the committee, or ex-member that breaks ranks on this issue" showing how shot through with group-think it has been (see also the Mantemoreland affair). Of course we all hope that this bunch are better, certainly NewYorkBrad, Risker, Sir Fozzie, Roger Davies stand out as far as I can remember (probably others), and certainly Jclemens stands out as irredeemably bad (for example, boasting that, unlike other Arbs he does not deliberate). But statistically we can expect a bad egg from time to time, which is why these governance issues are so important. And, moreover, by not addressing them, a culture of abuse can proliferate, on the grounds that "hey we're the good guys, sure we're searching without a warrant, but no harm, no foul". These observations were not base on any interaction with Arbcom, they simply hit me in the face when I started to look at the rules governing arbcom (which I had to, since I was being persecuted there, and was expected to know and follow the rules, unlike the other participants, the clerk and the arbitrators ). Normally I take little or no interest in "the drama boards" and had just assumed that ArbCom was set up sensibly by the sage figures who founded it, up 'til Xeno's crazy motion on BetaCommand derailed community processes - even then I thought it was right process, wrong outcome, which happens.
- My only other major issue with arbcom qua arbcom, did however come out of my case, when Roger Davies, I think it was, said after the case that most Arbs do not read the workshop. (Note, I had been advised by arbs or functionaries, I forget which, that I could make my refutations there, since the "case" is limited to 500 words.) The obvious result of this is that the committee largely goes with the drafting arb. For this reason I suggest that instead of the committee sitting en banc three or five arbitrators should hear a case - the workload being too great otherwise (and again leaked emails and general comments form arbitrators confirm this). I tried to gather information about this at Wikimania, while Riskier was forthcoming quoting figures around 40 hours a week, Courcelles and Kirill were vague.
- So that's pretty much it. At some point I will have to spend time defusing the editing restrictions, then revisiting ArbCom, who I am sure did their best, but really I'd much rather get on with building the encyclopaedia, whatever you may think.
- The only exception is, as I said, if I become aware of an abuse of power, or other malfeasance, whether through intent or error, I will try to have it corrected. And I am not apologetic about that.
- Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- Have you considered the possibility that your actions in "try[ing] to have it corrected" have been viewed as abusive? And yes, I was among the people expressing disapproval at Jclemens, but when he said he wasn't going anywhere, I dropped it as elections are a month away and it's not worth making a big stink about it. --Rschen7754 02:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't follow the Malleus case - and I believe that apart from that unfortunate turn of phrase I might have sided with Jclemens, but I know little enough about it not to want to express a firm opinion.
- And of course some of what you say is correct, I should have re-factored my comments rather than adding to them. But the more I looked at what Courcelles had written the more I was shocked. One of the questions he censored twice was why he had described a light hearted reference to archive bots choking on Penyulap's page as " admitting he is just wasting the project's resources". And of course C is in daily contact with Elen of the Roads, who it had taken me two months to convince (and even then I needed help) of the obvious fact that she should not have blocked Penyulap's talk page access in the first place. (I do not comment on Coren's original block, because I have not researched it, but every sanction I have seen applied against Pen, except one trivial one, has been groundless, and that one would have been better left undone.) And only at this point did I return to check the content of Pen's talk page and found that instead of just an unwise, hasty and unfortunate block, this was in the class that, were it left unfixed, might, in fact should, result in de-sysopping Courcelles. At that point it was immediately apparent that Courcelles needed to take urgent action, so I left a note, then emailed him. I still think he does not see the gravity of what he has done. He deleted the public record of complaint against him, then blocked the user on demonstrably spurious grounds. At this point he has a maximum of 24 hours to revert himself before it is a resigning matter, in my opinion. Just possibly if he does it before it hits the media (and it will if he does nothing - Wikipediocracy are always on the lookout for "good" material, though luckily they don't take much interest in my talk page as far as I know) he might be OK. And this is not a Wikipedia matter only, this stuff follows you around - which is why David Gerard insisted that ArbCom rescind the false impression they put out that he had leaked checkuser results. Rich Farmbrough, 03:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- Have you considered the possibility that your actions in "try[ing] to have it corrected" have been viewed as abusive? And yes, I was among the people expressing disapproval at Jclemens, but when he said he wasn't going anywhere, I dropped it as elections are a month away and it's not worth making a big stink about it. --Rschen7754 02:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- The issue isn't that you brought up a concern, the issue is that you were quite disruptive after it, posting section after section, post after post, without waiting for a reply. It was so bad that I was leaving a gentle note to begin with, which I would have escalated to a warning and then a block. Note that I haven't gone and blocked Bishonen, for example. There's plenty of people who are willing to take up your position in a more respectful manner; drop the stick and back away, please. The other issue is that it's obvious that you have an ax to grind against ArbCom; I've seen it on virtually all the drama boards. I don't believe in blindly endorsing all that ArbCom does (I have been sanctioned by ArbCom in the distant past) but this battleground mentality that you have is beyond the pale. --Rschen7754 01:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but how was I involved? I have only been involved in either situation in the administrative role, which is permissible per WP:INVOLVED. --Rschen7754 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, [14]. But honestly, there's plenty of other people involved in the discussion that your pitchfork doesn't need to be there as well. --Rschen7754 03:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's no a pitchfork. It's a wakeup call. And Courcelles is apparently a very deep sleeper. Rich Farmbrough, 03:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- It's no a pitchfork. It's a wakeup call. And Courcelles is apparently a very deep sleeper. Rich Farmbrough, 03:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
Notes
- ^ And others.
barnstar
Purple Barnstar with Oak Leaf cluster | ||
I award you the purple barnstar with oakleaf cluster, for equanimity, under continual hounding. You have proven by your conduct, too good for this toxic culture; may you bring productivity to whatever team you grace by your efforts. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. I don't mind the hounding - that's only one and a half people, it is that so many people are so easily taken in by it that I find a disappointment. Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
The Signpost: 05 November 2012
- Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end
- News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments
- In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?
- Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks
- Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads
- Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
To whom it may concern,
- I have been following the conversation on Jimbo's page, and would be grateful if you could post the following there for me - under my own name of course, in the section Seriously, "deeply concerned ..." .
--begin--
This idea that Wikipedia is not "Real Life" is fallacious. I have had at lest two editors contacting me saying that they were suffering ill health because of abuse on Wikipedia, and two who have felt close to taking their own lives. In every case but one administrators (individuals, not as a cadre) were responsible.
You have to remember our editor demographic corresponds very closely to the suicide demographic. It is only a matter of time before "Wikipedia editor takes own life" is a headline, and I just hope that when that evil day happens none of us have anything to reproach ourselves with.
(Note: We have of course lost editors to suicide, but not due to Wikipedia a far as I know.)
Rich Farmbrough, 03:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
--end--
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- Done Wifione Message 03:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
French communes
Hi Rich - really nice to meet you in Cambridge the other day. I see you've been involved at some point with WP:WikiProject French communes, and wondered if you knew any general context for a question I have about French communes. They've been relatively well-served by interwiki bot efforts: e.g. User:Rar's bot putting them up on uk.wiki in early 2010, with the result that the Ukrainian wiki has 30 times as many geotagged French articles as US articles. Do you have any idea why they should have been so widely ported across different wikis, compared to similar administrative units in other countries? Was the structured data for them fuller / available earlier / differently licensed / inherently more interesting than that for other countries? Any hypotheses or suggestions as to who might know welcome! Best wishes, Dsp13 (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I might modestly suggest when I had finished with them the infoboxes were all completely standardized on en: - they were presumably standardised on fr:, I can't really remember. They were also a hairsbreadth away from either being ported to
{{Infobox settlement}}
or having the infobox made into a wrapper, unfortunately they divereged. - The other nice feature is that they are dispersed across the world, and there are Commons maps for them all. Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
I came, I saw, I blocked
User:Dohardthings was warned for vandalism and (possible) socking, on 24 October. The user subsequently created a good faith article on the same day. On the 4th of November Elen of the Roads blocked this editor, for "abusive socking".
Can some uninvolved admin unblock, please.
Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- This was done with checkuser information (having seen the related SPI), so it's a checkuser block. --Rschen7754 19:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please read my edit notice. I am well aware that I often think things are clear when they are obscure. While I make mistakes, and despite Elen saying the opposite, I am by no means an idiot. Also I tried to be a little subtle and just get the consequences of a mistake dealt with rather than brandishing my pitchfork.
- Elen while casting her net wide on a different matter found that two accounts were editing using the same IP address, and one assumes the same version of the same browser. She blocked both as abusive socks.
- This is wrong for so many reasons:
- Zerothly it looks like the net was cast far to wide, constituting fishing
- Firstly both accounts had already been left messages telling them about socking
- Secondly the vandalism from both accounts had stopped and one account was making positive contributions - no need to block
- Thirdly when new users make socks we only block the sock, and not the master, while we explain the socking policy
- Fourthly the abuse of the accounts did not fall under socking restrictions
- Fifthly these accounts are obviously children, or as I prefer to call them "Editors of Tomorrow!" so that User:Meters took exactly the right line with the
{{Uw-agf-sock}}
template "Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia."
- Please read my edit notice. I am well aware that I often think things are clear when they are obscure. While I make mistakes, and despite Elen saying the opposite, I am by no means an idiot. Also I tried to be a little subtle and just get the consequences of a mistake dealt with rather than brandishing my pitchfork.
- I would appreciate if, to help my communication skills improve, anyone could say which of the above reasons were not immediately apparent on a cursory glance at the evidence. Also where in my two line synopsis "User is bad, user is warned, user is henceforth good, user gets blocked" it is not obvious that this is a bad block? Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- I would appreciate if, to help my communication skills improve, anyone could say which of the above reasons were not immediately apparent on a cursory glance at the evidence. Also where in my two line synopsis "User is bad, user is warned, user is henceforth good, user gets blocked" it is not obvious that this is a bad block? Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- I'll do you one better and give you an explanation. One of the reason blocks are marked
{{checkuser}}
is because the checkuser has more information available to make a decision than non-checkusers do. For instance, I double checked Elen's block to see if it was reasonable to unblock, and found that the editor is (a) clearly not a child, (b) sufficiently technically astute to attempt to dissimulate the socking (though not very well), (c) attempting said dissimulation before they were warned, and (d) flat out lying about it.Your assumptions were incorrect, which is quite normal since you based them on incomplete information. Where you erred is that in your zeal to find fault With Elen, you simply presumed that the blocks were bad even though you knew you did not have enough information to make a judgement in the matter. — Coren (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- CheckUser is not magic pixie dust
- Conversely I think your AGF is failing. I did not label the section "Elen makes another idiotic block", rather made light of it, and suggested that the user be unblocked, not that Elen be reprimanded. We already knew that these two accounts were closely linked - it is obvious to anyone with a grain of sense, no super powers possessed only by the immortal few are required. I am though, delighted that checkuser has been upgraded to include an "age" field, and that you can tell the difference between dissimulation and dissimilation, so to speak. I hope that you did not make any bad faith assumptions - while I, for example use almost exclusively Palemoon to edit, I have at least five other browsers (and different versions of those) installed on a good half dozen machines, not counting machines used by other people (and often shared), and other devices that give browsing capability. Moreover my IP address changes regularly. Were someone to see editing from these different devices (especially when some were using other browsers as default) they might conclude that I was "sufficiently technically astute to attempt to dissimulate the socking (though not very well)". We can, for example, construct perfectly normal hypotheses that two children in the same class (pace your Child Catcher MediaWiki extension) were working on the same book review, with their laptops at child A's house and one of them decided to vandalize Camel and did so twice suing both accounts, either on the same machine or on different ones. Or their is one child who made two accounts, one on his laptop and one on the family computer. Or this happened at school. Or they moved between home and school, or between Child A's house and Child B's house. These are all typical behaviours for children, as is thinking they can "get away" with vandalism, until found out.
- Alternatively you want us to believe that an adult, with ill intent but "1337" skills created an article on Salmon Fishing, vandalised Camel in a painfully obvious and childish way (perhaps a perl hacker?) and when rebuked created a childish start article displaying his 1337 skills (the html "big" tag) again, then ceased editing for 11 days.
- (For the avoidance of doubt I have set up several MediaWiki installations including one at home, and I am familiar with the CheckUser extension.)
- I'm sorry but unless a Lower Merion School type enhancement to vector.js has been slipped it I find your response a "bald and unconvincing narrative."
- Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- I guess it's a good thing you aren't a checkuser on enwp, then. — Coren (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and for the record, I don't want you to believe anything; you are quite welcome to believe anything you please. I suppose the mistake was entirely mine to take a moment to look into a matter you raised. — Coren (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not at all, you made a reasonable fist of explaining it. Except explaining how Checkuser gives you the age of an editor. Or why a block was necessary when (presumed) socking had ceased. Really I don't care if this is a 90 year old editor with technical skills of Larry Wall, the simple fact is - warned about bad behaviour, stopped it - end of story. Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- Ok, let's try this again without the snark. I suppose you can be earnest despite your needlessly combative tone. "Children" do not normally have a combination of six computers and browsers at home, generally do not take care to switch between them and back within a minute to create "alternate accounts", and do not make "productive edits" in good faith with a sock while vandalizing with others. They also do not create more accounts after being warned (but before being blocked) from yet another OS/browser. Funnily enough, pretending to be a child and making "childish" edits is a relatively common MO from a number of known trolls, and some editing patterns are quite recognizable to someone who has been looking an enwp logs for a while.
- So, once more, checkusers make their determinations using information you are not aware of. That you find the conclusions unconvincing is, at best, uninformed musings. — Coren (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- (Oh, an no – just in case there was a doubt – I don't believe for a minute that there was a nice testing lab involved containing an impressive diversity of older computers handy for the shenanigans. It's much easier to use the nice UA switching option of one's browser than to edit from a museum of computing). — Coren (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm quite pleased with my deductions over what you were seeing, though I am regretting disposing of my Microvax, my Prime, my 3 Fujuitsu disk drives as big as washing machines which together had a capacity of nearly a Gigabyte (but no way to access them), and will have to console myself with another visit to Bletchly Park.
- To summarise, there were six UA strings shared between Informationbuddy1 and Dohardthings in an way you haven't described and at least a seventh that Informaationstation1 used. This could be for several reasons, even as simple as not being able to log off. And a lot of people do keep old hardware and software running for many years. Of course it could be that someone was futzing with the UA strings as you suggest, and if you were seeing something like "Gekko" instead of "Gecko" it's a near certainty. But I'm not sure that's a hanging offence in Wikiland, indeed I have often thought of building a proxy solely to conceal UA information from the dataminers and others (See https://panopticlick.eff.org/ ).
- Now you are perfectly correct that Informationstation1 was not created until the following day, but the fact remains that after the final warning at 21:54 there was no vandalism from any of the three accounts. The standard procedure in this case is to tell the editor to "pick one" (assuming it is one person and not two or three).
- So, of course, you may have yet more secret information, and it is still not clear whether the blocking admin knew of the third account.
- Regardless blocking is supposed to be used to prevent damage and I see no indication that these accounts were (subsequent to Meters rather good handling of the matter) being used for that.
- It is quite funny that I get accused of not AGFing when actually I am AGFing about our Canadian friend. You may think me naive and trusting, and doubtless I am, but it has always seemed to me that the sane voices on Wikipedia, apart form those jaded by too much time vandal-fighting, are those who support trust, openness, forgiveness, second chances, growth opportunities.
- There is little in terms of what this sort of user can do to damage the encyclopaedia that cannot be fixed almost trivially and prevented from recurring. Conversely, in the long term, there may be a great deal to gain.
- And really the response to my initial posting should have been "<meh> unblock one" - instead, once the dynamic IP changes, our guy is free to create a new account, we no longer know who he is, and if he goes down the black hat route, he has found out how to sock successfully instead of unsuccessfully.
- All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- (Oh, an no – just in case there was a doubt – I don't believe for a minute that there was a nice testing lab involved containing an impressive diversity of older computers handy for the shenanigans. It's much easier to use the nice UA switching option of one's browser than to edit from a museum of computing). — Coren (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not at all, you made a reasonable fist of explaining it. Except explaining how Checkuser gives you the age of an editor. Or why a block was necessary when (presumed) socking had ceased. Really I don't care if this is a 90 year old editor with technical skills of Larry Wall, the simple fact is - warned about bad behaviour, stopped it - end of story. Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- I'll do you one better and give you an explanation. One of the reason blocks are marked
(←) You're missing the point. It's not about how many UA strings there were, or how likely each was individually plausible (I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure I saw one that claimed IE9 on NT4); it's about recognizing the "not a genuine child/newbie" pattern. I've often heard the "be nice to a vandal they may become a productive editor" meme, but I've never seen it actually occur. Newbies that behaved disruptively because they didn't know better? Sure. Users who started with "malice aforethought"? Never. (Or at least, if they do, it's by starting over; not by reforming the original troll accounts). — Coren (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK I'm afraid we're falling into a a predictable pattern here, and not making any progress. You keep changing the reason for the block.
- It started off "because they are socks". (Which we already pretty much knew, and head been dealt with by Meters.)
- Then it was "we know better than you". (Which may be true, but remember this admin blocked a user she was in an arb case with, another for posting a cartoon and a third for making jokes and editing on another Wiki. Also said another user could "come back if he changed his ISP" which turned out to be misplaced humour. I'm sure zillions of her blocks are just peachy, and she does extremely clever checkuser work. )
- Now it comes back to the vandalism. (Which we already pretty much knew, and head been dealt with by Meters.)
- There are a bunch of points I'd like to make, and some of these are tangential, but they are relevant.
- We currently have about 2% of the Internet blocked with range blocks, and probably a lot more by device count
- We have a tag on the main page "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
- We have a toxic environment, anyone who does not keep their head down, and some who do, get dragged into conflict, and all except the incredibly patient and the sociopathic get burned out, kicked out or leave in disgust.
- We have, apparently, a recruitment problem as well. (I say apparently because the studies I've seen need more work, and there are variables that are not factored in - it could actually be much worse, as well as maybe much better than the headlines.)
- Given that and the principle of AGF Meters did exactly the right thing.
- Overriding her final warning with "well we are gonna block you anyway because we are super-scientists and behavioural analysts" is in any case wrong - it is Wikipedia going back on its word. And while you have analysed this in some detail which might mitigate that a little the Checkuser at the time was working on another case, and was not even able to spare the time to tag the user pages (the talkpages still don't have a notice, which is maybe a good thing).
- Given the block was at least dubious, and that I requested an unblock, the response should have been to unblock, not to argue the toss.
- Please link these three accounts, unblock one and leave the appropriate templates. The cost of reblocking if they return to their camel persecuting ways is minimal, certainly far less effort than we have expended here.
- Rich Farmbrough, 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- Well, two distinct points:
- First, you are correct about too many range blocks, most of them for too long and too wide. That's actually symptomatic of two distinct problems, neither of which is easy to fix: (a) understandable frustration at persistent vandals over large dynamic ranges, and (b) blockers who don't have enough knowledge to analyse topology and evaluate collateral damage. The latter is, thankfully, very rare from checkusers; but as long as admins get to do range blocks we'll keep running into that problem. That needs a fix in policy and thus community consensus.
- Second, for the specific case, I simply don't agree. You requested an unblock, I looked into it with some attention, and see no reason to unblock. The reason if you insist on a simple statement, is "they are vandal socks whose editing pattern is indicative of a troll and nothing else." — Coren (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Rich, you know very well that administrators may not (ever) reverse a checkuser block without the consent of an editor who has checkuser access, so why have you repeatedly asked one to do so? AGK [•] 19:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I had no idea, Rschen's reply makes sense in that context. Issues that this raises I will put in separate sectionsRich Farmbrough, 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- Handy hint - do not run wikilinks together. Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- Handy hint - do not run wikilinks together. Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- I still think it is at the very least badly handled. Blocking these two accounts, correctly tagging them and informing User: Informationstation1 that they must stick to one account would have been fine (though more aggressive than I or User:Meters would have done).
- The thing that concerns me is abandoning principle, already in short supply, you can call it AGF, you can call it kindness, you can call it common human decency.
- When we do this it damages not only the recipient of bad faith and the environment and reputation of the project, but it damages us.
- Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- Well, two distinct points:
Sockpuppet template wording
"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used one or more accounts."
Can someone change this to something that makes sense such as
"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used an alternate account."
Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC).
- No. The original is better. It is possible that the operator has only one account, but edits abusively using open proxies. More often the operator is a serial sockmaster with many accounts that have been used abusively. To speak of an 'alternate' account in such circumstances is unhelpful as the sockmaster was usually blocked ages ago, and is in no position to create 'alternate' accounts. Your repeated contention that a blocked user can legitimately create an alternate account does not alter the actual block policy, which says that they cannot. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Your repeated contention that a blocked user can legitimately create an alternate account" I said this when? Oh you mean bittybattbotisnotabot? Completely different, and I have no problem with legitimate alternate accounts of blocked accounts being blocked (although in cases where it is clearly not necessary it is uncivil). And I never said that, because you never explained at the time it first came up, instead pointing to the Commons, you would have not looked so curmudgeonly if you had pointed to en: in the first place.
- So laying aside the neat little dig that is so wide of the mark, (I am coming to know you better, I guess, Elen) lets look constructively at the phrasing.
- The current phrasing is bad because it implies that abusing one account a.k.a. vandalism is quite possibly covered - and the way things are commonly worded "one or more" is often lawyer-speak for one. On the other hand you bring up three cases that potentially confuse the issue.
- Open proxies. I don't understand why you mention this. An open proxy is just another IP address, either an account is used or an IP. (IP addresses are of course a consideration in their own right.)
- Alternate is not a good word, I guess you are saying, though if the sockmaster is in no position to create alternate accounts, what is this thing we are blocking?
- We have
{{IP sock}}
, so this should only be used on named accounts. If there is no other named account then this is the sockmaster, I would presume,and should be tagged as such.
- We have
- We then can guarantee there is another named account involved (though we may, which is fine, just want to call them all sock puppets).
- I would suggest then we can say clearly and without fear of contradiction:
"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used more than one account."
(OK there are still problems when they haven't been abusive, but we have templates for that - sock of an indeffed user, sock of a blocked user, I am sure are wordings I have seen. I even saw one that told the future and said it was an account that was going to be used abusively, but that is a tangent.)
- So are we getting somewhere better than where we were?
- Rich Farmbrough, 02:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- Certainly one to discuss wider. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please take to the appropriate talk page then. Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
- Please take to the appropriate talk page then. Rich Farmbrough, 12:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
- Certainly one to discuss wider. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee
I have sent an email, followed by a short postscript to the arbitration committee. 24 hours later I have had no response from a functionary that it has been forwarded to the list (or declined). The same thing happened in May, and I never got a response. I am aware that I am not the only person that ArbCom has ignored, however it seems to me that it is a matter for the Committee, although even then I would expect them to send me a mail saying "we have decided to ignore you" rather than the mailing list moderators.
I would appreciate some clarification of what's happening here, this is a time sensitive issue, and I cannot for the sake of the encyclopaedia simply let this matter drop. I will be deciding my next steps, if necessary, when I return to my desk in about 5 hours.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- Just sent you an acknowledgement. Not sure why this didn't happen. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- OK thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
Deleted page
Done ϢereSpielChequers 22:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Can someone send me the text of Salmon Fishing, please? Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks, that supports my contention, FWIW. Rich Farmbrough, 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
UTRS
The UTRS system is hosted on toolserver. Who has access to this data? Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
Range blocks
"(b) blockers who don't have enough knowledge to analyse topology and evaluate collateral damage. The latter is, thankfully, very rare from checkusers; but as long as admins get to do range blocks we'll keep running into that problem. That needs a fix in policy and thus community consensus."
- More power to checkusers? When they don't even agree about blocks themselves? (Note, for example, Elen (the good guy in this scenario, please note) refused to block the /19 for fear of collateral damage, AGK just blocked an entire /16 - after all if people don't have an account they can't be pushed around by admins and arbs (yes I know that's not what AGK was thinking, but it's the effect, and it amounts to the same thing)). Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- Rich, please leave this. You're making an ass of yourself, and I don't like to see it. What I said was that the tool isn't capable of returning detailed results for that particular /19. I'd already said I wasn't going to try any kind of a rangeblock when I checked the smaller range - it's one of the biggest cable providers in the area, lots of legit IP editors. On the other hand, blocking a /16 that has nothing but Chinese spambots on it is not a problem. You don't have access to the Checkuser wiki so you don't see a lot of the problems that get reported. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's nice of you, but I don't mind making a fool of myself in a good cause. We're all friends here and learning from each other - well I'm learning anyway.
- You were looking at the \19 68.149.160.0 and AGK blocked \16 68.149.0.0.
- This is mostly or all Alberta, specifically including Edmonton. If Chinese spambots (tofubots?) are working through a cable company in Canada then I have learned something else. If not, perhaps I am not quite the ass you think. Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
- OK, I apologise, I see what you are looking at now. You're right, there's no way I'd have done that just to stop Br'er Rabbit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's gracious of you, Wiki-apologies are few and far between. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
- That's gracious of you, Wiki-apologies are few and far between. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
- OK, I apologise, I see what you are looking at now. You're right, there's no way I'd have done that just to stop Br'er Rabbit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- AGK here fell prey to (a), not (b). Yes, I agree this is too wide. It's interesting, however, how you manage to twist agreement that range blocks are too easily misused to be widely available into some sort of power grab. One might think you have an agenda that's more about bashing checkusers than genuine care for the poor beleaguered blocked editors. — Coren (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I would have less issue with limiting it to checkusers if arbitrators did not have the checkuser power, but I suspect the real problem is philosophical, we have already removed a mass of rights from IPs (see the mountain of articles languishing at new article creation for a fraction of the loss we have sustained by this policy) and removing more is a perennial proposal. I also think we could find alternative solutions, for example reviewing range blocks, providing better tools for mask generation, educationwick. Similarly we could relatively easily make much checkuser activity public and reduce the amount of stuff that happens behind closed doors. There is definitely an elitist attitude, not just because of people's "hats" but because people are used to knowing best in their everyday circle.
- And it's worth pointing out that I didn't say they should be less widely available, that concept was entirely introduced by you. As was the idea "everyone except us checkusers is an idiot", though you didn't phrase it like that. We should make another 20 checkusers, separate powers, create 500 new admins now and another 50 every month and make decent training available.
- That would be far more use than abrogating yet more power to a small clique who, however hard they may try not to, are bound to suffer common viewpoints and misperceptions, and by all accounts are overworked, yet unable to take suggestions to reduce the workload, instead insisting they must also work at OTRS, Checkuser and who-knows-where else.
- Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
- I didn't say that non-checkusers were idiots; it's a matter of it being difficult to assess the impact of a rangeblock when you can't actually see the usage of the range. Checkusers are just as fallible as any random editor; but they have considerably more data to base decisions on. — Coren (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- But they can see what they need to make the range blocks they need to make. I.E. open proxy, hosting, school, congress, that sort of thing. And of course they can also see the anon IP usage of that range, which should give a good idea. They can't see the serial sock IPs, so they can't make those blocks in the first place of course, except when the IP's are sufficiently leaked. Rich Farmbrough, 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
- But they can see what they need to make the range blocks they need to make. I.E. open proxy, hosting, school, congress, that sort of thing. And of course they can also see the anon IP usage of that range, which should give a good idea. They can't see the serial sock IPs, so they can't make those blocks in the first place of course, except when the IP's are sufficiently leaked. Rich Farmbrough, 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC).
- I didn't say that non-checkusers were idiots; it's a matter of it being difficult to assess the impact of a rangeblock when you can't actually see the usage of the range. Checkusers are just as fallible as any random editor; but they have considerably more data to base decisions on. — Coren (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Rich, please leave this. You're making an ass of yourself, and I don't like to see it. What I said was that the tool isn't capable of returning detailed results for that particular /19. I'd already said I wasn't going to try any kind of a rangeblock when I checked the smaller range - it's one of the biggest cable providers in the area, lots of legit IP editors. On the other hand, blocking a /16 that has nothing but Chinese spambots on it is not a problem. You don't have access to the Checkuser wiki so you don't see a lot of the problems that get reported. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are discussing my actions, so I wish to draw your attention to the following facts. (1) Account creation and anonymous editing from the /16 was blocked by me for 1 week. I calculated that this would obstruct the editing experience of only a few tens of people (who in any event were clearly directed to the account creation interface). This was most regrettable, but we must sometimes do these things. (2) This particular ISP assigns dynamic IP addresses to users across a /15 range, not a /19; the earlier block of a /19 was therefore useless. (3) You would be mistaken to imply or suggest that I blindly blocked this range, without giving serious thought to the collateral damage caused. As Coren says, we have enough data to assess the impact of range blocks, and (gasp!) we do actually use that data. AGK [•] 13:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Retired
I was going to head this section "Wiki-break" because I would love to come back to editing, whether it's bot-running, turtles, viruses, templates, vandal fighting or hosting at tea-house.
Unfortunately when I look at the options open to me, I find I am hemmed in at every turn by the hasty actions of one administrator a couple of years ago that have gradually made editing a misery instead of a pleasure.
The option of a clean start is denied to me, the only way I can make the contributions I want to on Wikipedia is either if I fight to get the editing restrictions removed (they run 'til the end of time) and the arbcom decision overturned, or if the community were to offer me an amnesty. I do not have the energy for the former, and I can virtually write the script if someone were to request the latter.
While I enjoy a robust discussion, the conversations I have been having with (doubtless well meaning) arbitrators are such that they never give ground to mere reason, only (and then reluctantly, and not always) to incontrovertible fact. It also pains me that in order to get a tiny concession from an administrator it took two months of work and she was "quite upset" (which in British English means "very upset") at the end of it. I am not here to upset people, I am here to make knowledge available.
From 2007, following multiple bereavements I was suffering for a long time from clinical depression, a fact which I shared with no-one for at least three years. I am proud to have made it through this tough time, and working on Wikipedia, and the camaraderie helped. But starting September 2010, a particularly nasty AN/I thread was kicked off and from there on in things have been downhill. I have no intention of returning to those dark days, and having had occasion recently to review the AN/I threads and the Arbcom case I have been reminded how awful they were.
I happened to notice, this morning, that {{Wikify}}
has been deprecated. I would have liked to have been on the discussion, as I have been very involved with that template - I took a brief look at the edit history, and saw that my last edit (in 2011) had been reverted by Fram. It brought it home just how much he is there at every turn, backed up by CBM and people who make their mind up before they know the facts, and then are not prepared to change it.
So as of now I will be doing the following:
- Logging out of en:Wikipedia
- Once my block has expired I will only fix articles I am reading, and that as an IP.
- I will pursue the current wrongful talk-page block of Penyulap, the abuses involved in that, and possibly his initial block
- I will consider helping with template coding if I receive email requests
- I will consider doing bot runs, if I receive an email request, but the requester will have to deal with ArbCom
- I may tinker with my user-space pages to prepare an appeal to ArbCom, but it is unlikely
- I may check my talk page from time to time, deal with archiving, and respond there.
To all other intents and purposes on en:Wikipedia, for the time being at least, this editor is:
All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC).