October 2010- September 2011 inclusive[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1972)[edit]

A tag has been placed on The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1972), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Abductive (reasoning) 05:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Hi![edit]

Can you redo your fixes to The Hands Resist Him ? I reverted YouTube links, which we don´t use, but had to revert your edits also in order to do that. Thanks. --Againme (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can redo some of them. thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Never mind, I already did it. :=) --Againme (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

--

Followup on Jacob Barron[edit]

FYI, you may now speedy Jacob Barron that you once tagged uncategorized. It appears that neither the league nor the team's site are aware of the guy's existence. The claimed awards were issued to other people. And the real (the other) Jacob Barron is a very skinny kid playing American football for UC Davis [1].

These uncategorized pages are one big can of worms. East of Borschov 18:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

woops, did not realized you're blocked. Oh well, sort it out and get back. East of Borschov 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They certainly are. Port Adelaide Football Club is probably more appropriate as "our" JB may well be the one mentioned in http://www.newtown.tased.edu.au/parents/newsletters/newsletters2005/Newsletter%2020.pdf. Regardless, speedy is the way to go. Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Speedied. Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Pages to check (note to self)[edit]

Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC). --

Telecom Corridor Genealoy Project article[edit]

Hi Rich,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom_Corridor_Genealogy_Project

I'm working hard on the article above. It is though my first time working with wiki. In the past few days I responded to the notablity comment in the article with adding many secondary references.

What am I doing wrong - why isn't the notice going away.

Hope you can help me. I'm currently not logged in, but my user is Ninabach2111.

Best,

Nina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.20.102 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nina, best person to ask is User:Mean as custard who added the tag. As a seperate point you should find some categories for the article, maybe Category:Social networks. Also clear up the text and headings of surplus capitals "as a Tool for Economic Development ", for example. Rich Farmbrough, 09:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

--

Dating dead link templates now done by AWB genfixes[edit]

rev 7199 adds {{Dead link}} to the list of templates that date is added when missing in AWB's general fixes. This will help you reduce SmackBot's extra code a bit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the examples on {{dead link}} use lower-case invocation. I hope that this can be respected. —Sladen (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

AWB only changes undated tags to dated ones. The result is for example {{Dead end|date=November 2010}}. There are no bare replacements but the capitalised version is used. diff -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the diff, which clearly shows the rule in work that you are referring to. This change could be argued to be captialisation by the back-door, and I would not wish to see Rich put in that position unintentionally. Please could we consider a lower case {{dead link}} insertion to reduce the chance of Rich receiving further unintended rapprochement—in this case for edits that aren't caused by his personal/Smackbot's ruleset, but instead by upstream AWB.

I think another very important change to reduce feedback (dicussion thread frequency on this page) is for AWB to use a dynamic summary line where the summary given lists the rules that were specifically activated in that edit (tersely, and only at least as many as will fit)—rather than generic summaries of "general fixes" which (again I have observed) have lead to threads on this page in times when an edit relevant summary might have avoided the discussion by helping other editors to discern what the actual change was (rather than just see a Rich/Smackbot edit and thinking "ooohh nooo, *sigh*, I wonder what has been carpet bombed this time..." (paraphrasing). I hope that changes in this direction would help Rich to be able to continue constructive editing sooner, again without risk of rapprochement: thus increasing the signal/noise ratio here and ensure that the real bugs don't scroll off the top. —Sladen (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I just extended something we 've been doing for a long time for other maintaince templates and shouldn't be confused with the capitalisition done by SmackBot. (AWB doesn't change {{dead end}} with {{Dead end}} (undated)) We discussed on having more detailed edit summaries. This is a work in progress I could say. Thanks for the feedback. I am just trying to help by simplifying SmackBot's code by integrating a part in AWB's core an make it customable. By the way, tagging/untagging done by AWB is shown completely in detail in edit summary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I have a feature request based on - I think - Bearcat's suggestion. That is to end-tag {{More categories}} where only birth/death, living cats are present. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Probably of course to include hidden or unhidden cats such as

Rich Farmbrough, 16:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

--

Wikipedia templates needing cleanup[edit]

What's up with this page. I'm assuming it was created by accident. Does it need moved somewhere or deleted? --D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 23:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

--

Template:Pufc[edit]

FYI: Template talk:Pufc#Date error and this diff. I've changed {{puf}} so that at least new additions will use the new date parameter and have just about finished going through all transclusions to fixe the date/log parameter where it was passed incorrectly, but there's at least one bot and possibly some scripts that will still use the log parameter.
Amalthea 21:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah #time: fails on those date formats. Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Yeah, I looked at your diff at the time but didn't realize that either. Amalthea 22:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

B.J. Nikkel[edit]

An IP has removed the references section, if someone could fix that. Rich Farmbrough, 11:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

--

Proposed deletion of Live At the Blue Note 11/14/2000[edit]

The article Live At the Blue Note 11/14/2000 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has not received enough third party coverage to meet the notability requirements of WP:NALBUMS.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge to artist/discography. Rich Farmbrough, 06:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

--

ANI thread[edit]

Anyone that is wondering I will get back to that later. Rich Farmbrough, 17:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

3am time for bed. Moar soon. Rich Farmbrough, 02:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Scratch that, off to BRFA. Rich Farmbrough, 02:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femto Bot (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your attention[edit]

Rich hi :) Can you give your comments here please? Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking... Rich Farmbrough, 07:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Done Rich Farmbrough, 07:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

zanks :) Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I might be doing something wrong here. I put the changes you suggested and tested it against the said edit. Didn't kind of match. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

---

SmackBot STOP bug[edit]

To stop Smackbot, the instructions given at User talk:SmackBot are to place the string "STOP" in that page and a new section link is provided to do this. This "STOP" string continues to be the present, but the bot is making edits[2][3] including the very capitalisation changes under discussion[4]. Making edits while stopped appears to be a bug: please could you either (a) adjust the documentation to clearly state how to disable SmackBot, (b) fix the bot to not make article space edits when intentionally stopped following the instructions. —Sladen (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be a layer 8 issue (where the operator had restarted it despite the ongoing dispute over the nature of the edits). –xeno^talk 14:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in a witch-hunt and I am quite happy to believe that this is a bug, in which case it is easily fixable. I have noted above[5] that one of the points of conflict that see here are reported bugs that go unfixed. I am reporting the issue in the hope that it can be fixed. I look forwarded to Rich confirming that this was the case and that it has been genuinely fixed, either with amended documentation or amended code. —Sladen (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect neither of the edits changed capitalisation. The purpose of leaving a message is to stop the bot not to block it. The bot was stopped. I tested the possibility of restarting a minor task, which does not touch Cite templates, and discarded it after a couple of edits, as too complex to do straight away. Rich Farmbrough, 09:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
- The third of those diffs, this edit, shows a change from {{silicate-mineral-stub}} to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}}. Amalthea 10:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  - Very well spotted indeed. I see that one-bit change has SmackBot now blocked. Or was it just the blocking admin's impression that SB was blocked and had been unblocked by me? I can't tell. Oh well, fun to watch the pile-on at ANI, while unable to defend myself there. Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

It's irrelevant who noticed what; a Bot's owner was notified that a Bot under their control was misbehaving (running whilst "stopped" and making controversial non-BAG approved changes) . The Bot's owner responded by denying the situation and flatly contradicting the reporter(s)' notifications to the contrary (...rather than just taking and accepting the bug report, and acting on it). As above[6], my perception of conflict at this Talk page stems from being critically aware of other editors rocking up by the dozen, reporting bugs and seeing those useful bug reports disputed, or ignored. This thread/report is another example of that.

Now I try to get past the first level of rebuttal (hard work), but many others do not bother and that means that bugs and issues are getting lost/ignored, which is not helping to improve Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC) (Things do sometimes get fixed—thank you Rich—but it often takes multi-rounds to get the issue looked at[7], one fortnight ago: eventually got fixed but it took multiple rounds.

Well your original post said "I have no idea what the bot is trying to do" so I explained that to you two minutes later on your talk page. Your clarification one minute after that, [8] (which might have been an edit conflict with my reply) went un-noticed, since it was on the bot's talk page not mine (so I got no orange bar), and an edit to the existing comment. I replied to your comment on my talk page within about 4 minutes, and resolved the problem, which meant fixing not just my code but the broken archiving on the talk page in question, which had been broken for months, possibly years, correcting the page layout and the talk page archive, and rebuilding the ruleset twice (which takes about an hour each time) - during which I made no unrelated edits and Smackbot was stopped. So while I understand that it may have looked like "multiple rounds" from my perspective I answered every post within a few minutes, and spent some time working on the bug once it was clear what the bug was. Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for your analysis of the resolved and thanked situation from a fortnight ago. Could I draw your attention to the two paragraphs before the footnote. The plan here is to try to get you unblocked—could you please provide an equivalent level of analysis about what the bug report above was caused by, what change(s) have been made to fix it, and how that the bug fix prevents Smackbot operating when nominally stopped. —Sladen (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Firstly three edits is not "running" in any real sense of the word, there was not as Xeno said and "ongoing dispute over the nature of the edits" except with regards to the silicate=>Silicate which I missed at the time and others missed since, and is not really what the dispute is about, although peopel are trying to enlarge the scope aa much as they can,it would seem. The dispute was about the "Cite" templates - and even then at three different levels, one concerning diff noise in user edits, one diff noise in bot edits, and one "idontlikeit" addressing the actual change itself. I do respect all three arguments, the difficulty comes, as so often, when trying to hold a discussion with several people who hold the different views at the same time. And it is compounded when some of them jump into other threads on the page and try and weave all the disparate issues -even mild mannered requests for information- into a tapestry hung from a single nail. Xeno's comment to a dead thread (in which, incidentally, I had said i had no objection to the other editor's proposals, and then admitted I was wrong on the content of a guideline) was a case in point - as was your comment, I believe, on a thread about correcting dates. I made some attempts to refactor the page but decided it was simpler to just restart, as I had read everyone's comments, and everything would be on the archive page - which is clearly signed at the top of this page. I posted the nature of the problem in the top thread of this page. Doubtless I should have simply persevered with refactoring the page, or been clearer in the new thread that that was why I was archiving the page. Easy to be wise after the event.
Furthermore you and others misunderstood the nature of "stopping" which I have explained above. The purpose of leaving a message is to stop the bot not to block it. The bot was stopped. I tested the possibility of restarting a minor task, which does not touch Cite templates, and discarded it after a couple of edits, as too complex to do straight away. Not unreasonable actions. Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for responding to this and for providing the new documentation at User:SmackBot/What the stop button does. —Sladen (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

---

FYI[edit]

See here. –xeno^talk 21:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have added the link myself. Q Science (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup from August 2010[edit]

Any idea what's up with the cleanup categories? Most of them are populated but redlinked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes some people changes the template, and hence the cat tree, once User:Femto Bot gets approved (and I hit go) the cats will be created automatically. If any of the old cat tree become empty, they will nominate themselves for speedy deletion (neat huh?). Rich Farmbrough, 22:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Hmm, I don't think that will work. You can't categorize a page via parser function without an actual (null) edit. Amalthea 22:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, but maybe Heisenberg applies? Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Or maybe not. Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Might need to mess with the dates, and then I can have a null edit done by bot. One for tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

OK I'm puzzled - guess I'm missing something about CSD category. Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

It works. Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Dab page needed[edit]

Ho-oh should possibly dab to Fenghuang. Rich Farmbrough, 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC). --

ETA for dumps[edit]

ETA 2011-01-08 21:36:43... ?Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC). -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femto Bot (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

wp:ani remember?[edit]

Hi. Could you spare a moment to comment at wp:ani (the section with your name on it). I know you are very busy man, but it was the reason you were unblocked for ;) Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have it open, guess I would get an edit conflict.... Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

One for tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

4.5 hours and 81 edits... —Sladen (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So... when you requested to be unblocked to allow you to comment at ANI, you actually didn't have anything to say, and was just lying to get around the block? And that you might have an edit conflict isn't a very good excuse for not commenting.... I'm not impressed. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

~~It wasn't an edit conflict, it was somewhat more sever than that. Please see my comment on ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 07:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC).~~

OK not what you meant. Rich Farmbrough, 07:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

As I understand, the situation is/was this:

User:Femto Bot(!) ("copied from ANI - due being unable to save while I was replying"[9]) and User:Rich Farmbrough ("Oh well, fun to watch the pile-on at ANI, while unable to defend myself there."[10]) state that Rich is prevented from responding to WP:ANI
User:Magioladitis ("suggested unblock so Rich can comment in WP:ANI. I think this is more urgent"[11]) and User:Sladen ("Rich: I'd prefer to see you make this unblock request on the basis of contributing to the WP:ANI discussion, it is more immediate concern"[12]) suggest asking for an unblock to respond to WP:ANI
User:Rich Farmbrough requests ("unblock|To join the discussions at ANI."[13] asking for unblock to be able to respond to WP:ANI
User:Wknight94 grants unblock request[14], giving Rich the ability to respond to WP:ANI
Time passes…, lots of edits do happen, but not to WP:ANI
This thread gets started as a prompting to reply to WP:ANI
First response marks it as unimportant ("tomorrow"[15]) and second response—later retracted for completely missing the point—disputes the prompting ("It wasn't ..."[16])

Rich, I appreciate that you have since added a comment to ANI. In deference to Wknight94, for having put their credibility on the line, please could you let us know:

Why, after asking for right-of-reply you did not immediately use it, but went off to do other things?
Why, after further prompting you did not immediately act on the prompting, but instead argued the prompting?

—Sladen (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See you assume that "tomorrow" means unimportant - whereas it actually means "too important to do at 1:30 am." Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Anything things? Someone broke something, it needed fixing. That's why I asked for an unblock. Second request was to comment at ANI. I clarified with Wknight64 on his talk page the scope of the unblocking.
The other edits were relatively simple, there is no point rushing into ANI half cocked, especially as the thread was somewhat long and convoluted. I could spend days responding there,and still only scratch the surface.
As should be apparent from my retraction I misunderstood KingPin to be talking about why I didn't respond to ANI in the first place - which was a block within 8 minutes while I was not editing - lesson learned I should have dropped a one-liner "Response being written". I have made three responses at ANI plus one forwarded by Xeno.
As for KingPin's

was just lying to get around the block

I don't really feel the need to respond to this kind of stuff.

Also I wonder at the assumption that ANI is more important than the encyclopedia. Seems like the tail wagging the dog. I know people have a glorious time at ANI, RFC, ArbCom, 3RR etc etc, and I don't begrudge them it, and indeed those places serve a purpose. But the operative word is serve - not rule. Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

There is no assumption about priority, only your own assertions. It is my understanding that you considered ANI so important that you requested an unblock on that basis. The unblock does not prevent you doing other things; but if other things was what you actually had in mind then the unblock request should have truthfully been made on those grounds. As you've probably noticed, your unblock request to do other things was not the one that got you granted. —Sladen (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with Sladen here. As to my lying comment, in the unblock you said that you were requesting unblock so as to be able to comment at AN/I. It's apparent from your actions after the unblock, as well as your comment above, that actually the reason you requested unblocking was to do "other things".

Which I see as lying, and do think could use a response. While were talking about this stuff, I should just say I think you'd find people get on with you much better if you apologise when you do mess up, otherwise you (not on purpose) give the impression that you think you are above this. For example, you slapped a maintenance tag on the main page, maybe you would care to explain why that was? This is one of the things which got you blocked, and I haven't actually seen you address it (I might have overlooked something of course). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Read my reply to Sladen please. Rich Farmbrough, 17:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Yes I was picking up "Main page" on a list from the toolserver. I went through the list maybe 8 times (regenerating it every time) and obviously hit skip for main page 7 times. One time I messed up. yes it was a mistake, yes I make them, all the time, everyone does, and yes I apologize for any difficulty it causes. But I also fix them up - and not wishing to get defensive - if an un-cat on the main page was that big a deal, why wasn't it reverted by another admin before I got the message on my talk page? Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for addressing this issue. Were you actually examining each individual edit, or just the list of pages to be edited? I'm surprised you could have missed the main page if you went through the list 8 times, but these things happen. However, this is exactly the reason we have process like BRfA, peer-review will often spot things which one person can easily overlook. Often lists of pages/categories will be created on-wiki, which will then be examined by a whole group of editors (often from a WikiProject), and this massively reduces the risk of this kind of thing happening. As to it not being undone, you've hit the nail on the head. Because you are making these edits from your main account (which has +sysop), and making edits in massive batches, it means it's piratically impossible to actually review your edits, which means things like this can go unseen very easily. I think anybody would admit that having a maintenance template on the main page is a very large mistake, and I don't think you can pass it off as no big deal. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On a pragmatic angle; two things would solve this: (1) Patch AWB so that it refuses to change "Main Page", even if asked to, (2) Patch AWB to enforce its own rule #2, that it is not used from a +sysop-enabled account, even if asked to. —Sladen (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1) The actual problem is that Rich has modified the AWB code to allow it to run in automatic mode from non-bot accounts. And it's fairly obvious he had it running in auto-mode when the main page edit was made. 2) That's not what rule 2 says, and AWB actually has admin-only features (like deletion) in it, so it shouldn't prevent it being used by administrators. –xeno^talk 19:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we all aware that this episode is down to human error; but lets not broach that because it's not constructive or useful. Short of seeing Rich getting blocked in the future, lets see what we can do it minimise the collateral that might cause that. We already know that Rich has custom everything and I don't see why these two can't be part of those customisations. If you have a better idea, please also suggest it. —Sladen (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to think about the appearances you have created.

Largely I may say, in the eye of the beholder. But yes, point taken .Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

As pointed out, the unblock reason that was accepted was so you could, primarily, present you side of the situation at ANI.

Well, yes and no, see above.

As soon as you were unblocked you ran after other issues on templates and articles. After 4 and a half hours, and being chided about it, you pointed to getting to ANI "tomorrow", and have clarified it now as your having been too tired to adequately participate there.

And when you did get to ANI, it was during your 3rd block of editing after the block was removed, more than 17 hours after you were unblocked, and did squat to address the issues that were brought to ANI and resulted in you block.

Like I said it's a big thread. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

And this isn't even touching on you 'bot request.

As an admin, would you honestly find this acceptable behavior from another editor? Or would you have expected the addressing of the ANI, addressing community concerns about the editor's interaction with the community, to have been prioritized as the first few edits after the block was lifted?

- J Greb (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There is just too much to do there, it's not "first few edits" it's about de-constructing 48 hours of character assassination, by people who are just "chiming in", settling "old scores" or - even the good faith ones - have not bothered to read the material in question. Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

I can appreciate your point here about having to essentially catch up, and that your implication that you dislike ANI (methodology if I'm reading right, not the fundamental premise), but it still causes problems. Among them is a perception that you have a disinterest the community component of Wikipedia and that you'll do whatever you can to continue do what you want, and only what you want. Neither of those is a good thing for others to have.

Posting a simple comment to the ANI thread just after your block was lifted to affirm what you are going to do and not do while editing articles, templates, cats, etc until this has run its source would have alleviated some of this. Even if you had to hold your nose while doing it. Including a comment that you also needed some time to really parse through the multi-part thread to sift issues and pitchforks before giving a fuller post on your position wouldn't have hurt either.

- J Greb (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See #Cite for your request. Does the dif need to be included here as well to underscore it? - J Greb (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The ublock request replied to was specifically to attend to problem. The reason said that I had "agreed to respond at ANI" - which I had never said I wouldn't and if I hadn't been blocked before I could respond, would have done. You can read my earstwhile reply here or on ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Request: "To join the discussions at ANI."[17] and "Yes [I agree to avoid continuing an automated (or semi-automated) task despite messages (and complaints) about that task.]"[18].
Unblock: "User agrees to participate in ANI discussion and to stop doing what he was blocked for"[19].

It's a pretty accurate synopsis I'd say; somebody asking off their own back is unlikely to be refusing… We can resort to William Jefferson Blythe III levels of arguing over the meaning of "is", but I don't think it's worth it. —Sladen (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not really interested in which unblock request was the one granted, if the question even makes sense. However for those that are, the unblock message is placed after the first unblock request, and to, I thought, forestall any such bickering I clarified with Wknight64 the scope of the unblock. Obviously I must try harder. Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

I think you need to be interested in why you were unblocked (this could be the "trying harder" bit; in which case all is good, and this is solved). It was (abundantly) clear to me—and I presume User:Magioladitis—that your original request had a cat in hell's chance of being granted amicably; which is why I—and I presume User:Magioladitis—suggested that you didn't bother pursing it and instead pointed you in another direction.[20] You (thankfully) chose to follow this recommendation and that left you unblocked within the hour. Your further (sensible) proactive clarification with User:Wknight94 afterwards got you: "simply agree to stop any batch editing as soon as you start getting objections" with the note/proviso "ANI would like some further concessions regarding batch edits, so you should discuss things with them".[21] I can post the whole clarification here, in green, if it really helps but the meat is what I've posted and particularly what I've underlined. It matches the above unblock messages, and it matches your revised unblock request (the one that got granted). —Sladen (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

How's this coming along? I believe the "further concessions" are those mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conditions that would satisfy X!, Kingpin13, MSGJ, and others, but I haven't seen a response/follow-up posted from Rich yet? —Sladen (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly evident that you guys will keep plugging away forever at this - it will be "Why did you split my comment on your talk page?" .. "when replying to the RFC about refactoring other people's comments you said "xx".. but .. Aha ! I have a diff proving that you were in fact editing an article on Chinese gunpowder at the time." If you actually have anything cogent to say, say it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Unblock[edit]

{{unblock|To deal with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Cleanup#Correcting_to_apply_to_all_namespaces category problems. Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC).}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User has agreed to participate in ANI discussion and, moreover, to cease doing what got him blocked in the first place.

Request handled by: Wknight94 ^talk

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Could you clarify for the reviewing admin what needs to be done? Is it AWB work? Or just some edit to the template? –xeno^talk 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not AWB, (although the change is throwing hundreds more pages into SB's queue, which with the current category lag will take time to sort out). A new category structure may need constructing, and the discussion needs to be informed of a few things,, and maybe the template revised in-line with that. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Moreover, can you just clarify that you will be a little more responsive when people raise issues about your edits? I.e., make any future blocks unnecessary? Wknight94 ^talk 19:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggested unblock so Rich can comment in WP:ANI. I think this is more urgent right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rich: I'd prefer to see you make this unblock request on the basis of contributing to the WP:ANI discussion, it is more immediate concern and would be easier to grant. Talk of "throwing hundreds more pages at SmackBot" may not endear everyone. —Sladen (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let us then say "Throwing hundreds more pages into Category:Articles_with_invalid_date_parameter_in_template which is going to create problems for me, and is unlikely to be addressed by anyone else." Rich Farmbrough, 19:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

{{unblock|To join the discussions at ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC).}}

You were blocked for continuing an automated (or semi-automated) task despite messages (and complaints) about that task. Can you agree not to do that anymore? Wknight94 ^talk 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Okay, thank you. I've unblocked. Wknight94 ^talk 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

--

Category:BLP articles lacking sources from May 2006[edit]

It was in CAT:CSD. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC) --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femto Bot (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thread copied from ANI - due being unable to save while I was replying to it[edit]

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Recently, the AWB bot has been making totally unnecessary capitalization changes. These were being "discussed" on Rich Farmbrough's page, here and here. He said that he fixed the problem, but a day later, it was back. When brought up again, his response was to blank (archive) the page. Therefore, I request immediate halt to this use of this bot until this issue is addressed. Q Science (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that so many have complained to Rich about pointless template capitalization changes and other sundry changes such as = = spacing around headers == makes it clear that these are not uncontroversial edits. As such, they represent a violation of WP:AWB#Rules of use #3. I had laid off complaining about R.F. botting from his main account, but only because the edits were by-and-large useful and uncontroversial. This is no longer the case. These types of edits that change articles from how they were intentionally set by other editors to suit one bot-op's personal preference should stop unless they are approved by BAG. –xeno^talk 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Would there be any objection if a regular editor simply hit the big red button on SmackBot's user page until an admin deals with the matter? Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither the bot nor I are editing at the moment, nor will we be for some time. I have revised the ruleset on Cite templates, as I said. When people start destroying the structure of the talk page the choice is to revert or archive. I had 35 threads, all pretty much dead, it seems reasonable to archive them - all accessible and new messages can still be left. I have now revised the rulset further and removed the Cite templates completely, restoring the status quo ante. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Do you want me to copy this over to ANI? As I mentioned to you prior you to collapsing it, you shouldn't be changing the first-letter capitalization for any templates without consensus or approval; if a human editor used {{small case}} then it can and should remain small case. I'm also a little concerned at your characterization of good faith criticism as "vandalising the talk page" (since amended). –xeno^talk 21:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be cool. I'm away for the night anyway - and dropping comments into multiple unrelated threads is what I was referring to - I have moderated my language a little. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Ok. –xeno^talk 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple threads are the strong indicator here. If there are no errors, then there are likely to be no threads—something impossible, which is why it is important that we take the time to report bugs here, not just revert the change. Thirty threads means thirty problems that didn't work out. If any of them are repeats, it means that the original bug wasn't fixed—and that is the conflict that I watch at work here. Editors report bugs, and the bugs go unfixed. Editors report again, unfixed again; ... If a issue point is controversial (and not a clear-cut bug), then it should not be being altered en-masse by automated means (including pseudo-automated means).

Not so the page was approximately
2 outdated/test messages

1 technical discussion

1 thread about a template

1 about an IP vandal

1 about an apparently deleted item

1 about something from 2009

2 requests for article fixes

1 request for a feature

2 discussions about categorization (or not) of WADS and SWAT

2 thanks

4 notices

1 advice of an edit conflict

3 request to look at tagged articles

1 query about MediaWiki limitations

2 error reports

2 about the current issue, one an instruction to stop, one a query.

and 1 *ahem* request to be a pen-pal.

Rich Farmbrough, 06:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC).
And 1 about header spacing. Rich Farmbrough, 09:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

One option might be to pick a number here (eg. five). As soon as this number of threads are open and not yet archived, then hold off the edits until one of the threads gets auto-archived. This would ensure that all threads got the attention deserved, ensure that all bug reports were seen and not missed, and ensure that the edits being done really were of an above-average quality and truly uncontroversial nature. —Sladen (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I've actually dumped auto-archiving by date anyway as there are too many problems, albeit minor. Many thanks to Mizabot and WerdnaBot and the others for years of service. Rich Farmbrough, 06:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

What is? Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Sladen: "If a issue point is controversial [...] then it should not be being altered en-masse by automated means [...] One option might be to pick a number here (eg. five). As soon as this number of threads are open and not yet archived, then hold off the edits [...]" – You: "That's a good idea, [...]". Amalthea 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to continue doing bot tasks (or bot-like editing) without explicit BAG approval, then your tasks better be completely uncontroversial or backed by solid consensus, and you be extremely responsive to concerns brought to you. If a task is challenged then you better stop right away, instead of waiting for five threads with complaints.
Over the past couple of days it seems to me that you just wanted to sit it out. You claimed you changed your AWB rules, but you were in fact still doing it. My AGF ran out. Amalthea 10:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was matching {{Cite Web}} I think. I have removed all four (journal, news, web and book) from the generating rules as of build 553. Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

… which still wouldn't suffice. Changing the capitalization of the first letter of any transcluded template is quite obviously not non-controversial. Amalthea 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There are three issues that I see here:

Running an unapproved automated bot on your main account - explicitly disallowed by the bot policy
Not responding to concerns about your bots, and blanking instead - bad bot operator practice
Continuing to run tasks which quite obviously do not have community consensus - bad bot op practices and violates Consensus

Those three issues, combined with the continuation of this for a long time, has resulted in a block. Unless you can give reasonable explanations for these three points, I see no other way to go except to remain blocked, and if necessary in the long run, a ban from operating automated tasks. (X! · talk) · @490 · 10:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC) OK let me address these:

I will restrict AWB runs on my main account to modest proportions, and document any over, say 100 edits, on my talk page before running them. AWB runs can, of course, be stopped at any time by leaving a message (any message) on the user's talk page. I will respond to any such message and allow at least 20 minutes for a re-response before continuing.
Yes, agreed, editors were leaving comments in unrelated threads, and the page had become a mess. I attempted a re-factor and gave up - I should have been more patient. I wasn't implying that discussion was over, juts that there was nothing on the page that needed to stay on it, and we could continue in new threads.
I have removed the inline Cite templates and can also remove the header spacing. These are minor facets, and I understand Amalthea's concern's over diff noise - which related not to bot edits, but regardless, I have removed them (the inline Cite templates) from the build number I gave elsewhere and onwards.

Rich Farmbrough, 10:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Can you also please remove the change of {flagicon| to {Flag icon| and of {noflag} to {No flag}, both per previous talkpage requests? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 12:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

NP.Rich Farmbrough, 15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

--

Blocked[edit]

I've henceforth blocked you from editing until the issues surrounding your unapproved bot are resolved. Despite the much good this bot has had, it's also creating much disruption. Just today, it tagged the Main Page as uncategorized. It took 12 minutes to self-revert. It is adding spacing changes which are clearly not uncontroversial. Despite multiple warnings, it continues to do so. Thus, I have blocked you until you can resolve these issues. (X! · talk) · @924 · 21:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC) --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Femto Bot (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Threads[edit]

Silly putty
Slinky
Fluffy kitten

I understand people feel strongly about things, but please try to keep your conversations in the appropriate threads. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC). --

Catch you later[edit]

I'm off for a nap. Rich Farmbrough, 14:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

I should be so lucky. Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

--

SmackBot[edit]

Hello, this was initially an article written to be placed into 'website' catagory. Not sure how or why it changed or if it made it there and was removed or revised, but that is where it originated. I'd love to place it into a few cats but am not sure how to go about doing this at the moment. Your comments and help would be appreciated, thank you. Charvelguy Charvelguy (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The contribution is listed as Thepublicrecord.com thanks, Charvelguy (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Thank you! Charvelguy (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not like you at all![edit]

[22] Philip Trueman (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean a mustache like mine, or our revert conflict?! Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Note[edit]

There's no need to change it to a week because the IPs only do that once (it's a coordinated attack also). --Bsa dow ski1 21:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Feedback[edit]

I update my article Youssef Elsisi with categories and added more content and a new section for awards. Please let me know with any feedback. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selsisi (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) ---

AfD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible study (Christian) since you contributed to the article.Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC) ---

DNB00[edit]

I was looking at instances of "DNB00" in the main namespace, assuming that they should all be made now into uses of {{DNB}} and {{Cite DNB}}. One thing that comes up in the search, which was mainly about catching the interwiki style of link s:Smith, John (DNB00) and replacing it, is that in some cases the floruit wikification has got into templates, and throws up a DNB00 as a result of "fl." being linked. I thought that these happenings, however caused, should be tracked down now. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah as in John Hamilton - "apprehended with a halberd in his hand " - know what he feels like. OK worth a look. Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

I found 13 candidates looking for DNB ,~~and~~ followed by [floruit on the same line, all should be OK now - most you had been there first or were false positives. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. See you at the next Cambridge do? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Date feedback[edit]

"October 31–1 November 1918"→"31–1 October November 1918"[23] —Sladen (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Remark: This isn't an AWB bug. I tried it in Sandbox with rev 7205. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm kinda not using AWB right now.... Rich Farmbrough, 07:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

I scanned Wikipedia and didn't find any more back-to-backs like this. Rich Farmbrough, 15:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

--

New section[edit]

Not that this really matters but the sticking point is stuff like

     <Replacement>
       <Find>{{\s*(Citation[ _]+style|Cleanup-references|Cleanup-citation|Ref-cleanup|Citationstyle|Citation-style|Refstyle|Reference[ _]+style|Reference-style|Cleanup-refs|Citestyle|Cleanrefs|Refclean|Refsclean|Source[ _]+Style|Sourced[ _]+wrong|Ref-style|Refcleanup) *([\|}\n])</Find>
       <Replace>{{Citation style$2</Replace>
       <Comment />
       <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
       <Enabled>true</Enabled>
       <Minor>false</Minor>
       <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
     </Replacement>

If you make this case sensitive you can catch all the [Cc] using the above trick, but you would have to at least split out the R and S templates giving 5 rules - so better to have two.

     <Replacement>
       <Find>{{\s*(Citation[ _]+style|Cleanup-references|Cleanup-citation|Ref-cleanup|Citationstyle|Citation-style|Refstyle|Reference[ _]+style|Reference-style|Cleanup-refs|Citestyle|Cleanrefs|Refclean|Refsclean|Source[ _]+Style|Sourced[ _]+wrong|Ref-style|Refcleanup) *([\|}\n])</Find>
       <Replace>{{Citation style$2</Replace>
       <Comment />
       <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
       <Enabled>true</Enabled>
       <Minor>false</Minor>
       <RegularExpressionOptions></RegularExpressionOptions>
     </Replacement>
     <Replacement>
       <Find>{{\s*(citation[ _]+style|cleanup-references|cleanup-citation|ref-cleanup|citationstyle|citation-style|refstyle|reference[ _]+style|reference-style|cleanup-refs|citestyle|cleanrefs|refclean|refsclean|source[ _]+Style|sourced[ _]+wrong|ref-style|refcleanup) *([\|}\n])</Find>
       <Replace>{{citation style$2</Replace>
       <Comment />
       <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
       <Enabled>true</Enabled>
       <Minor>false</Minor>
       <RegularExpressionOptions></RegularExpressionOptions>
     </Replacement>

which isn't bad because it's only 569 more rules, not the 5000 odd you would get from breaking out the individual redirects - although the processing time should be roughly the same.

As it happens there is a far more efficient way to do it: but my point is that it is very easy for people from the outside to say "why don't you (or doesn't he) just do X" - like the software engineer who very kindly came and offered advice on building some assertions into the bot, completely missing the fact that AWB is an application, and therefore "sanity checks" like counting characters before/after was not an option. (Well again it is an option, albeit a slightly crazy one, but I only know that because I have been working with AWB regexes for years - and I am not even that good at regexes - although I did get them to perform arithmetic. ) Rich Farmbrough, 17:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Still far too much complexity/duplication. I (think) tou've got two different operations going on here; (a) changing template names to some consistent end result if they were not ("canonicalisation") and (b) removing spaces from an existing template invocation (I think). So:

       <!-- (1) Canonicalisation -->
       <Find>{{\s+(clean(up)?-?(ref(erences|s)|citation)|
            |(cit(ation|e)|ref(erence)?|source?)-?([Ss]tyle|clean(up)?)|
            sourced[ _]+wrong)\s*([\|}\n])</Find>
       <Replace>{{citation style$2</Replace>

       <!-- (2) Spaces to hyphens -->
       <Find>({{citation) (style)</Find>
       <Replace>$1-$2</Replace>

I appreciate that those won't be quite what you want (since I can't workout what the second part is for—if you explain it, I'll try to codify it), but it should get you close-enough that you can tweak + test further. —Sladen (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right there are two things going on (although no spaces to hyphens). In near perl syntax what should be happening is something like:

s/{{[ _]*(\w[ \w]*?)(?:[ _]{2,}|_)/{{$1 /g;

to regularise all templates on the page and then separate rules to consolidate redirects, then the spelling and format fixes, and finally the relativley simple dating stuff.

However - like a fool - I was trying to avoid touching templates other than the clean-up ones. I did however remove leading :template: etc in one rule.

Fun though that is there are 569 clean-up templates and consolidating each set of redirects (this is how I was doing it years ago) is very cool if you can do it automatically and not get any false positives.

For example your rule matches {{Reference cleanup}} - which happens not to exist but could be a navbox about Farenheit 451 (this is exactly the sort of problem SB used to run into until I unrolled the complexity into two main rules per template). The other thing is you have to anonymise all the unwanted brackets with ?: or the numbering goes to pot $2 should probably be $5 or $6, maybe even depending on which branch of the "or" you take. Rich Farmbrough, 17:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

--

some random title[edit]

lorem ipsum etc.. Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC).
[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

[X] copied from User talk:Femto Bot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 19:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Edits[edit]

These edits did not date any tags and should not have been saved. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Rich Farmbrough, 12:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 19:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Illogic capitalising in defaultsort[edit]

Hi, I stopped the bot because it is capitalising non-intuitively, see here: Defaultsort for UTF-8 is "UTF-8", not "Utf-8". Apart from changing from correct spelling, since not all UTF-pages are edited, the sorting order ends up wrong in Category:Unicode Transformation Formats. UTF-8 should be before UTF-9. The bot should not over wikipolice the rule (I know the DuBois situation). -DePiep (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

---

es[edit]

I think your edit summary in AWB is not correct any more, e.g. here. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - thanks. Just wanted to get that done. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Talkback[edit]

Replied at my talk. Amalthea 20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

↑ Amalthea 21:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

---

SmackBot unblock[edit]

{{Unblock|Not doing that any more.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Reason for blocking addressed.

Request handled by: Closedmouth (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC) ---

The Signpost: 4 October 2010[edit]

News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more

In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers

Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle

WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes

Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture

Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

---

General fixes[edit]

Testing indicates that GFs will fully date 15% of the undated articles. Rich Farmbrough, 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Current backlog is 10,000 near as. Rich Farmbrough, 15:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Are there any other other templates that would you like AWB to date them with GFs? I recently added Dead link but I bet there are some more. -- 16:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mag. No, it is all perfectly cool, once I am convinced that I can actually run a bot without being stopped by one admin for using General fixes, or another for not doing so I will get that 15% out of the way and get back to BRFA. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

And some have wondered why I havent started to use my own bot! Good luck in the quest brave knight! --Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that gives me an idea User:Sir Lance-a-Bot? Rich Farmbrough, 17:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

---

Lisa Shannon[edit]

Hi,

I'm wondering if I could add a mention that Lisa contributed an essay, "A Simple Run," to the 2010 book The Enough Moment, Fighting to End Africa's Worst Human Rights Crimes, by John Prendergast with Don Cheadle (pp. 221-223).

Or is that impossible, because there's not a third-party site that references her contribution to the book?

Thank you!

Nell 01:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC) {{subt:Autp}} ---

SmackBot rides again[edit]

Could you explain the purposing of putting </noinclude><noinclude> back-to-back.[30][31], still I suppose that it's legal... I am however baffled by the recursive <noinclude><noinclude>[32] on another edit. An adjective distance 237 km should have been 237-kilometre ...[33]. I believe Flag template renaming/recapitalisation/adjustments[34] (as you, not the bot) was something raised very recently, so probably preferable to rescind this before it is raised again/seen as antagonistic.[35] Hope that helps. 34/38 == 89%, passable, although not ideal. —Sladen (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's simplicity. It is always safe to add that cliché to a template, and (so far) it has fixed the big red letters every time. However it is fairly trivial to add a rule to remove that, and I would say also probably safe, although removing an empty noinclude wouldn't be. Rich Farmbrough, 06:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Well that's less baffling - the template had a dangling <noinclude> .. and therein lies an example where my above "proabably" is justified. If someone creates a template with a mismatched </noinclude> tag at the end, you have just changed what is probably a minor tansgression (there could be legitimate reasons for it in meta-templates) into a major one. Rich Farmbrough, 06:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Ok I'll raise an AWB bug on that. Rich Farmbrough, 06:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Actually I won't. A non-breaking space is an improvement over a normal space, and expecting the devs to code for the linguistic cues as a bug is asking a bit much. Also it's a little fiddly to make a feature request out of, when there's really useful stuff needed. But I will drop a note on the talk page, so that they can take it into account. Rich Farmbrough, 06:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Done

If it has a space, then clearly it needs dealing with (analysing). If it has either a hyphen, or a   then clearly it was analysed. A   insertion is not necessarily better, because it is implying a quality assurance that is not there: and one cannot then send in (a more intelligent) bot to find it. —Sladen (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not? Rich Farmbrough, 07:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triathlon&diff=prev&oldid=388638544 Rich Farmbrough, 08:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

I expected to find that it was Smackbot that broken it in the first place (it wasn't, SB was the edit immediately after!).[36] —Sladen (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Rich Farmbrough, 06:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

(Now also inserted into the above). [37] —06:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Sladen (talk)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 06:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC).I

Oh BTW it's not "recursive" but IKWYM. Rich Farmbrough, 06:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

So 34/38 is now 37/38? or 38/38? Enquiring minds want to know. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

It's still 34/38 (and always will be, being something of its time in the past...); three <noinclude> issues and a WP:MOSNUM-adjective issue. Hopefully the report has enabled the rules to adjusted, so that if the bot were to run over the same inputs again, it would be 38/38. Enabling the rules to be fixed for the future is the reason why I post here—if you have fixed these then great, run it for another ~40 edits and I'll have a look and see if I spot anything this time.

Can you confirm that you have altered sufficient the rules, such that if they were run again, the same edits would not be made as they were this time? —Sladen (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK there are 4 things you challenge. 1-3 your suggestion would be a bug. SmackBot is correct. Number 4 your suggestion would be an improvement, for which I am preparing a BRFA, but SmackBot's change is not wrong. I have explained carefully, I thought, the reason for 1-3. I have demonstrated with the Triathlon example that there is no reason to stop putting a non-breaking space in adjectival measurements. I thought we had dealt with the reflist issues. Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think I raised any {{reflist}} issues. Regarding the rest, I have raised them, I'll allow you to act on that information however you wish. (The fifth was {{flagicon}} and was one that you made under your own account, and this (if you are not using AWB on main account anymore) was presumably human, rather than a bot). —Sladen (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Reflist was the task that was running. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Orphan tag on Lisa Shannon page[edit]

Hi, will you please remove orphan tag now?

Thank you, Nell 01:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Your question at VP/T[edit]

RF, your question at VP/T has been worked upon, maybe you want to take a look. -DePiep (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Is it not possible...[edit]

...to simply have AWB recognize when templates aren't capitalized and leave them as they were? Ditto = = spacing around headers == ? –xeno^talk 14:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can take out the spacing rule, and I have removed the cite stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 09:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

What about the rest of the templates? Their capitalization shouldn't be changed absent community consensus that automated processes may capitalize en masse. –xeno^talk 12:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is non-trivial and non-constructive to remove the capitalisation of clean-up templates - the reason is explained in my FAQ. It is minor but unhelpful to remove to for stubs. It is trivial to remove it for most other templates SB has accreted - though no-one is, I hope, advocating infoboxes beginning with lower case "i". Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

People are advocating that template names be left as found… —Sladen (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The first person to introduce a style, wins? That's one of the reasons we have bots, to improve readability and uniformise the articles in a same style. I certainly prefer Infoboxes with capital ""I" and I can locate them much easier. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You may find templates more readable/recognizable when they are capitalized. However, you must realize that this view is not universally held: some feel that small-case first letter is preferred for most templates to prevent them from looking like the Start of a sentence of prose. And even still, there are those who could not give a toss but do not want to see edits flip-flopping back and forth, bloating diffs with sundry trimmings that make it hard to see what the actual meat of an edit was. –xeno^talk 18:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I also don't like the diffs created of SmackBot sometimes because it's impossible to check them for mistakes. I just made a global comment. I also don't like with SmackBot/Citation Bot conflict and we have to find some sort of agreement. Moreover, yes there are some low-value edits that can be done in addition to some crucial edits and some low-value edits really not worth the try. Removing spaces from header titles I think it's a dead end since we have hundreds of thousands of headers with spaces. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well there are at least 3 bots (2 of which I was unaware of until yesterday) putting spaces in. Otherwise they would be vanishingly small I would say. Rich Farmbrough, 07:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

I understand your rationale for capitalizing templates. What I don't understand is why you're still doing it after you've received so many objections to the practice. Seek community consensus to implement a guideline suggesting that template names should always be capitalized, or build in logic to leave them as you found them. –xeno^talk 18:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rich: please confirm that you have removed all header-spacing or template capitalisation-related rules from AWB/SmackBot/AnyOtherBotUnderYourControl and that you have no intention of re-inclusion; then we can get this thread closed too. —Sladen (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read my reply to Kingpin on ANI? Hang on I will do as you suggest and make a single demonstration edit. Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Ok bad idea. Either the edit is not made at all or it works. Demonstrates nothing. However I can let it do a pre-pass run and illustrate my point. Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Sigh, that doesn't work either. Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

OK -here are the rules User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/SmackBot.xml. Which ones should I remove? Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Simple, quick answer. Anything in the Find/Replace section with <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions> will likely need refining/adjusting. To take an example such as:

    <Replacement>

      <Find>{{\s+Infobox </Find>

      <Replace>{{Infobox </Replace>

      <Comment />

      <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>

      <Enabled>true</Enabled>

      <Minor>falsetrue</Minor>

      <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>

    </Replacement>

Combined with always running as Skip if only minor replacement made (should) mean that (a) capitialisation adjusting doesn't happen, (b) such an edit is marked as minor (== allegedly uncontroversial, with a policy document showing consensus to back it up), and so a greater amounting of invaluable diff-busting page edits will simply never happen at all. Does that make sense? Magioladitis: is that the correct way to go about this? —Sladen (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

- - - - See new section *********************

Actually the simplest thing is to dump all of them. BRFA them back as and when needed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Except that CBM will block if I run Gen fixes without fixing the code. Lolcats and roflcopters. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

If someone would be kind enough to unblock SmakcBot. I can at least run when I get a recompile through, and maybe run reflists sooner. Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

(edit conflict)I would support CBM in further blocking until adjustments have been taken; I think the thing to do here, is perhaps to show the before-and-after Smackbot configuration files to BAG and ask for a short test-run/temporary unblock, where it should be immediately clear that the second XML is considerably smaller, and (likely) to be less volatile. Personally, (just for me...), I would like to see a move away from generic summaries and cluster bombing (such "Gen[eral] fixes", which is vague and opaque) to summaries that state exactly what is being done (eg. it does exactly what it says on the tin, and no other rules are enabled outside of the that scope during that edit; so if it's doing "date managling", state that, and if it's doing "Infobox tinkering", state that and which precise fields).

In an ideal world, we should not have to block and it should be possible for an editor to just stop (self restraint) when politely requested. Resorting to blocks has only happened here because an editor didn't stop when asked (repeatedly FWIW). —Sladen (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes? SB was blocked when it obviously wasn't running - as anyone could see. I was blocked within minutes of being given information that there was an ANI report, which at the time cited incorrect diffs. Femto was blocked without anyone ever communicating anything about it to me, or disputing its edits. It's fine - I don't mind the blocks (wasn't that a 1970's record) but don't fool yourself, or try to pretend to me, whichever it is, that Admins- or even 'crats are temperate. You only need to look at the last few days ANI to see admins being indicted for bad blocks - despite the absurd process at RFA that is supposed to ensure they are all of god-like stature. Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Please show the code for the "cite" template since that is what started all this. Looking at the example above, it looks like Replace is the problem, not RegularExpressionOptions. Q Science (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Search for zzzzz.Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Hey I did it for you.

Code

    <Replacement>
      <Find>{{\s*(Cite[ _]+bookzzzzzzzzzzzz) *([\|}\n])</Find>
      <Replace>{{Cite bookzzzzzzzzzzzz$2</Replace>
      <Comment />
      <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
      <Enabled>true</Enabled>
      <Minor>false</Minor>
      <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
    </Replacement>
    <Replacement>
      <Find>{{\s*(Cite[ _]+journalzzzzzzzzzzzzz) *([\|}\n])</Find>
      <Replace>{{Cite journalzzzzzzzzzzzzz$2</Replace>
      <Comment />
      <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
      <Enabled>true</Enabled>
      <Minor>false</Minor>
      <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
    </Replacement>
    <Replacement>
      <Find>{{\s*(Cite[ _]+newszzzzzzzzzzzz) *([\|}\n])</Find>
      <Replace>{{Cite newszzzzzzzzzzzz$2</Replace>
      <Comment />
      <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
      <Enabled>true</Enabled>
      <Minor>false</Minor>
      <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
    </Replacement>
    <Replacement>
      <Find>{{\s*(Cite[ _]+webzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) *([\|}\n])</Find>
      <Replace>{{Cite webzzzzzzzzzzzzzz$2</Replace>
      <Comment />
      <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
      <Enabled>true</Enabled>
      <Minor>false</Minor>
      <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
    </Replacement>

even re-formatted the code. Rich Farmbrough, 16:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Although I'm not sure which part of "dump all of them" means you want to look at them. Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

You should be able to match against [cC]ite and re-insert this as $1ite, but really I think those could all be rolled up into one rule matching (Cite|cite)[ _]+(web|book|journal|...) *→$1 $2—having the present amount of copy-and-paste duplication is unwieldy. —Sladen (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, also see new section - similarly I could roll up "Citation needed" "Page needed" and "Year needed" but simplicity is the key here. The compute time for the four matches should actually be faster than for the combined one (or at least not much worse), see Boyer-Moore-Horspool unless Microsoft have done something really silly. In the above example the replacement would be {{$1 $2$3 - this is the sort of thing that bites you in the behind when you try to optimize things that don't need optimising. Of course it does when you try to optimise things that do need optimising too, but in that case it is worth it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Execution speed is secondary to programmer time, maintainability and size[38] (ability to audit). Copy-and-paste code means that something eventually gets missed accidentally when updating. If something goes AWOL, it's irrelevant how fast it goes AWOL—in fact the slower the better, since it's easier to for humans to review. —Sladen (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed version User talk:Rich Farmbrough/SmackBot.xml Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, that example is exactly what I wanted to see. (I tried the page you suggested, but did (do) not see anything similar.) I think the real problem is obvious - when the code makes the change, it is capitalizing the template name. (In other words, the problem has nothing to do with the search.) As you know, many computer languages are case sensitive. Even though this one is obviously not, it is my opinion that the style used in the examples should be followed by the script. In my opinion, this is less confusing for everyone. In the case of "cite", the examples are all lower case. When I add a citation to an article, I copy and paste the example code and modify that.

When a bot comes along and makes case changes, that is equivalent to telling me that I made a mistake and that I should not do that again.

This is such a basic flaw in perception that it staggers me - but perhaps it explains a lot. The purpose of automation is to make our lives easier, not to reprimand us : what you are saying is tantamount to saying "when the servers dish up my wiki-ccode as HTML they are telling me I should have used HTML to write the page." Bots make changes to pages for a number of reasons:

To correct errors - these can be errors that fall class you describe above, (like for example using the header "External Links" instead of "External links") or far more minor, or far more extreme:
- More minor <BR> => <br /> You can put <BR> in your wiki-text all day as far as I, and I suspect almost everyone in the world is a concerned. But it is still a "good fix" to change it.
- More major copyvio this will actually get you a little reminder "that you should not do that again".
As far as the middle ground is concerned, stuff like "External Links" the territory, metrics or however you want to see them are actually changed by the presence of bots. If some editor is routinly putting "External Links" on, say 100 articles per month without bots it is a minor problem. In a botted world it is almost negligible. This is very fine grained - for example I template people who subst clean up templates that SB can't de-subst, because I have to deal with them manually. Every time SB gets smarter the subset of examples I template gets smaller.
Because stuff has changed - templates, policy, style, guidelines, external URLs
Perfective maintenance - good example REDIRECT: -> REDIRECT - nothing "technically" wrong with the ":", it parses beautifully. However there are at least three cases on record of it breaking an external tool.
And so forth...

Putting it another way if I were to say:

"When an editor comes along and makes case changes, that is equivalent to telling me that I made a mistake and that I should not do that again."

it would raise a few eyebrows to say the least. Rich Farmbrough, 09:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Therefore, unless it really is a mistake, and the examples are changed to say that I am making a mistake, I strongly prefer that the code on web pages should also be lower case. I am not suggesting that lower case is better than upper case, but that automated tools should follow the examples. In those cases where the examples use upper case, so should the script.

That said, I propably won't support your changes. Perhaps you should read ANI:Changes to cite template to understand why. Q Science (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

[39] . Although I'm not sure which part of "dump all of them" means you want to look at them. Rich Farmbrough, 09:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Re: Doing too much[edit]

I'm glad my words helped you. I was afraid that they were too self-centered, partly because I don't want to come across as narcissistic but mostly because I have seen this same thing happen too fucking many times. Dedicated, skilled contributors -- who do more than I do here -- one day find that the chronic push-back has overwhelmed them, & in response act rashly not boldly. Maybe this could be avoided if established or senior editors were treated with more respect, but that would likely give certain individuals more power than they should have. (If I simply mention a certain ArbCom case opened in the last few days, will that point you to a sufficient example?) I don't know if that cure would be better than the illness. I'm not even certain that gradually reducing one's responsibilities here is the best cure. But I am certain that opening an account on a website like Wikipedia Review & ranting about the conditions here is not a good solution; better to just throw up our hands & move on than to let the dynamics here control us. -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Talkback[edit]

New messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 1 and WT:BAG ;). Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the two BRfAs, are you looking for a bot flag for the bot in regard to either of these? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to de-clutter watchlists, but, at the moment, mainly for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot which is editing in Category space. Rich Farmbrough, 10:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Okay, I think I'll just go ahead and approve the 0, 1 and 2 BRfAs, but one more question about the latter two first: Are you just looking for approval for your own user space at the moment, and will you be creating a new BRfA in future if there is sufficient demand to make it worth your time allowing other users to use this system? As to the SmackBot stopping, that's fine, since it's only you who's got to put up with it ;). I do think it's a bit of a shame AWB insists on using this setting, and doesn't allow a separate stop page, but ah well :D (actually, while we're on this subject, I noticed you sometimes use Smackbot to edit User_talk:SmackBot, not really a problem, but not strictly in-line with BOTPOL). Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, all three marked as approved. If you're actually writing a message you're better off using your own account though. Remember some people will have bots not showing on their watchlist, so using bots to reply to talk page messages can mean replies aren't seen. Oh, by the way, if you use chrome (and other some other browsers presumably, I imagine a guy like you uses firefox ;)), you can use the incognito window to get a window with separate (but not logged) cookies etc. Which enables you to have two accounts logged in at a time, which could make that easier (I use the same method to have two email accounts open simultaneously) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Attention needed here[edit]

Hi there. Do you have time to please take a look at this issue? A new editor is adamantly adding non-notable films into this list. The editor has received several cautions and explanations on his talk page, however he does not respond. With his additions he has vandalised the format of the page. Your administrator's intervention is required. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it. My talk page is suddenly busy... Someone should get to him on AIV though, a first glance it doesn't seem like vandalsim, that is maybe a little strong. Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Template recapitalisation[edit]

{{refimprove}}→{{Refimprove}}.[40] {{unreferenced}}→{{Unreferenced}}.[41][42][43] {{cleanup}}→{{cleanup}}[44] ...and those are all in the first dozen I happened to review just now. I thought we had stopped recapitalisation? Please stop. —Sladen (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

These are all being dated. And by AWB GF's not my rules. Rich Farmbrough, 15:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

AWB's general fixes are making the capitalization change? –xeno^talk 15:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I threw out my 5609 rules and just use GFs. I explained this four times on this talk page - seems no one reads? Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

[45] <-- indeed... someone should let the devs know that changing template capitalization is a point of contention. –xeno^talk 15:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Um.. except it kinda isn't. Find me 5 people who score less than me on Baron Cohen's test and give a non-breaking space about any template capitalisation, much less clean-up templates capitalisation. SmackBot had been capping almost all cites for over three weeks - and certain cites much longer than that - before anyone left it a message - and that was a result of them not reading what I wrote here. Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Reads to me as "I'm right and they're wrong" and that's not a good attitude for a botop. Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#autotag makes disputed capitalization changes. Are you suggesting the people who dispute the capitalization changes are autistic or something? –xeno^talk 15:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I was referring to the fitness test for immigration into the UK introduced in his first Parliament as a solution to all the country's problems. Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Then you ought choose your words more carefully, given that almost all of the search results for "Baron Cohen's test" relate to the autism/Asperger's spectrum test - which would represent a shockingly inappropriate personal attack. –xeno^talk 15:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see. Under that interpretation I would have been suggesting that if you could find more than four of them, then at least one of them would be as far along the spectrum as me. Quite how that would have constituted an attack is unclear. Whereas accusing some one of lying, not wanting to communicate, having a bad attitude, being "a layer 8 issue", acting like a deficient bot.... seem like attacks to me. Not that I take it personally. Rich Farmbrough, 17:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

When I said layer 8 issue, I meant that it was not an error in SB's programming, but an issue where the person behind the keyboard had restarted the bot. –xeno^talk 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Is cool. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

So any objection to doing the rest of that 15%? Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

I understand templates that already have a date are not changed (capitalised), like AWB does (not). -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That is correct to the best of my knowledge, as long as you don't count the replacement of "fact" with "Citation needed" (and possibly similar). Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot just made 1 edit. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

I await with interest, and not a little trepidation, the heat death of the universe. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

--

STOP[edit]

cuz its deleting my talk page

Please can you give some more information. I can see that your talk page was moved to Talk:Me,Mannix Chan earlier today, but I can't see the connection between that and SmackBot. Please could you give more details, or the URL where you are seeing the problem? —Sladen (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's Ok I replied on their talk page. They had blanked it. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot[edit]

Tempalte: Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. * Terminal user: Femto Bot. Terminal timestamp: .

Rich Farmbrough, 10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Update to [[]][edit]

Tempalte: Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. * Terminal user: Femto Bot. Terminal timestamp: .

Rich Farmbrough, 10:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
10:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot[edit]

Template: Approved.. * Terminal user: Kingpin13. Terminal timestamp: .

Rich Farmbrough, 11:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
11:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
--

STOP[edit]

stopstop ---

Rootkit[edit]

Good day. Could you please investigate why your bot keeps breaking the inter-wiki links, as it keeps doing here (Note the link for "kh" at the bottom of the article.) Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course. Rich Farmbrough, 10:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Seems there is no kh:wikipedia? Rich Farmbrough, 10:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

kh=Cambodia - yip, looks like a typo by someone. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Lincoln Re-election[edit]

I can't believe I'm bothering you with this (my OCD kicking in !) Merriam doesn't have the hyphen in "reelection". I didn't change it back though; the hyphen looks better to me. We have been working real hard on the AL article for a failed FAC. We actually had one comment that we didn't have enough hyphens in the article. Anyway, we are expecting an second copy edit in a week or so, then may do a GAC. Thanks for your review.CheersCarmarg4 (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! I have a large pot of hyphens, please help yourself to as many as you need. Rich Farmbrough, 14:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Sect-stub[edit]

You may want to add {{sect-stub}} in your list of redirects, since SmackBot fails to add date to it. Check this diff.

You may better want to send this for deletion since the name is confusing and out of the standards for maintenance templates. Just let me know. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes as I said above there are 570 tags and 1-2,000 redirects that are turned off, to avoid accidental capitalisation. Should be resolved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SmackBot_35 some time in the next 18 months or so? <chuckle> Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Bare subst tag[edit]

In this edit [46] the bot added bare subst tags again. There were several other edits with the same problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm... This may have with something I added in AWB's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be because subst won't evaluate within <ref> tags.^[1] Why doesn't AWB just take the date from PC clock? (I guess because it might not be set correctly...) –xeno^talk 15:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

^ Sample template content.

The bug caused because I added {{Dead link}} to the list of tags that must be dated. :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Won't the same problem appear if someone put a fact tag into a ref tag, like <{{subst:void}}ref>{{fact|date={{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}</ref>. This is perfectly possible for an explanatory footnote that has text in in.

This issue with bare subst tags has been a recurring problem for the bot. I usually see it caused by HTML comments, when the bot tries to date a tag that has been commented out. I don't think I've seen the ref tag issue before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find this documented anywhere either. I wonder if it's a regression. Can #tag be used instead? –xeno^talk 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB knows not to date tags in comments. Let's remember that this is a MediaWiki bug in that we ought to be able to subst within ref tags (known bug to me, don't know the bugzilla number). Rjwilmsi 15:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's T4700 and its many duplicates. –xeno^talk 15:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It's good to hear that about HTML comments; presumably that error was unique to SmackBot. If I see it again, I'll let you know.

The issue with parsing being somewhat broken inside ref tags is well known: bugzilla:2700. But this is the first time I have seen it affect SmackBot's edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed SB never leaves them in ref tags, and should not anywhere, when it is running it's full ruleset. However since I am running at at GFs only, which is about 15% success rate on this particular task (and of course now it has been stopped, say half way through, will be maybe 8% for the next run, and about .25% for the run after that), the only way I have of checking I am not saving edits which don't date a tag is to look for stuff like {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} post edit. Once I get the BRFA approved for bringing back the canonicalisation of tags, the hit rate will go back up to 99.5%+ (based on the fact that a run against 1000-ish generally leaves less than 5 undated - and some of those might be skipped). Until then T4700 will triumph. However, be of good cheer, such tags will bring the pages to the attention of SB every time it does a dating run. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Wouldn't it be easier to simply stop "canonicalising" (which isn't needed) the tags? –xeno^talk 18:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Which bit? The underscores instead of spaces? The spelling errors? The multiple spaces? The outdated tag names? The short cuts? Or do you just mean the case of the first letter? Which either no-one, or almost no-one objects to except for inline Cites? You can trawl through my and SmackBot's talk archives, you will find several mentions of it but only one objector - except recently (i.e since the 24th/28th in terms of general diff noise - but that's a separate discussion). I know it may seem like I am being wilfully obtuse, but if you review the thread Headbomb left, and see what people actually said (which, sans telepathy, I generally take to be what they mean), there was one person actually complaining about the change per se (viz Headbomb), and apparently only in relation to non-bot edits, although he clarified that later. And that was specifically "Cite". I am not sure if you "don't give a toss as long as it doesn't flip flop" but that is how I read it. But regardless "the {{Cite looks out of place when compared to the standard", certes only about 10% of Cite templates are capped, but over half all templates and 98% of {{Infoboxes are capped. Similarly I would wager over 80% of clean-up templates are, and I would challenge the suggestion that when someone type {{wfy}} they are hoping that it gets replaced with {{wikify}} rather than {{Wikify}} - I use wfy, cn, unref, uncat myself.

So would it be easier? Yes I suppose it would - I could change the rulebase to replace wfy=>wikify Wfy=>Wikify - but that seems pointless to me for the reasons above. And that level of detail-wank, I'm sure would bring someone boo-hooing because vS => verify sources didn't preserve the capital S, or because they had lined up their cleanup templates by choosing redirects with the same number of letters is they lined up perfectly and why is a bot ruining the aesthetics of their page? I guess I'm saying I'll put the BRFA in, which is easy, and I'll advertise it at VP, which is easy, and if there is contention, then we can have an RFC on capitalisation of tags, with people !voteing on caps, lower, keep the same, make each page uniform, and if more than 3 people bother to vote for anything but "Lamest RFC ever" I shall PMSL. But on the other hand I can at least change the rule-base knowing that there is actually anyone (or three) who think it matters. Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

(You didn't have to type so much - Sorry for being unclear =) Just stop changing {{cleanup}} to {{Cleanup}} [read: only change being capitalization], and I think you'll be fine. –xeno^talk 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB only catches 15%. Out of interest why is that Rich – list of dated templates in AWB too short? Rjwilmsi 09:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, partly that, I have ~~569~~ 570 templates I date, plus about another 1-2000 redirects. Partly, possibly that the other AWB bots have eaten a percentage of the bot food (e.g. maybe it was 25% and 10% have been done by other AWBs), partly that SmackBot fixes not just Date= but relatively obscure typos like fate=, 20010, "Seeptember" as well as the common "Spetember", "Septmember" and "Sepetember" it is particularly good at January, knowing the word in about 80 languages. You can't spend 4 years dating millions of tags without developing into a little bit of a niche specialist! For yet more details see SB's latest BRFA. Rich Farmbrough, 09:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Hell is other robots and Robotics project assessments

Hi Rich

I have replied on the Robotics page here. There is a previous discussion in the archive also here.

Sorry I didn't respond sooner but I have been away for just over a month due to holidays and flu and the parameters on the archiving were too short so I only just found your question in the archive.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot

Template: Approved.. * Terminal user: Kingpin13. Terminal timestamp: .

Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
11:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
--

STOP

SEE:From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search [edit] Speedy deletion nomination of Me,Mannix Chan You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. A tag has been placed on Me,Mannix Chan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Mean as custard (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] SmackBot stop [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35

Template: SmackBot 35. * Terminal user: Fram. Terminal timestamp: 09:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot

Template: Mirror Bot.
Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough.
Terminal timestamp: 14:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC). *

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 5

Template: Femto Bot 5. * Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough. Terminal timestamp: 02:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: Femto Bot 4. * Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough. Terminal timestamp: 11:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 3

Template: Femto Bot 3. * Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough. Terminal timestamp: 03:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 2

Template: Approved.. * Terminal user: Kingpin13. Terminal timestamp: 11:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 1

Template: Approved..
Terminal user: Kingpin13.
Terminal timestamp: 11:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC). *

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot

Template: Approved..
Terminal user: Kingpin13.
Terminal timestamp: 11:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC). *

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot

Template: Approved..
Terminal user: Kingpin13.
Terminal timestamp: 11:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC). *

Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
12:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Re:WikiProject India banner

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

-- Tinu Cherian - 11:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Nomination for deletion of Template:FULLFULLPAGENAME

Template:FULLFULLPAGENAME has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 04:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC) ---

"Update status of bot task"

This "task" is making an awful lot of edits, around 100 or more just today. Perhaps you should have it report to a subpage, rather than your user talk page? –xeno^talk 14:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It will be a little quieter now. Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

I had clobbered the clobbering device as it was clobbering itself. Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

--

SmackBot

oh that was not you. i am very sorry

No problem at all. Rich Farmbrough, 12:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

--

SmackBot

Thanks to Smack Bot for correcting the mistakes made on the citation text in my Allen Timpany update. If only Smack Bot could be used to correct all of Allen Timpany's mistakes the World would be a better place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.75.123.51 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot is always happy to help. Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 36

Template: . *
Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough.
Terminal timestamp: 22:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 22:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
---

STOP - Annoying merging of references messing up quotes

Smakbot is normally very useful, however in this edit it has merged references to the same urls and in the process has dumped and confused two different quotations that I had included which where different in each case. I suggest that references with quotes are not merged. I realise that I could go to the length of creating a notes group but that seemed like too much complexity for this modest article. Thanks. Note that I had already left this message on your normal talk page before noticing your request to 'stop the bot' if it was causing damage. PeterEastern (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

See thread above. This was a false report on my part. Apologies. PeterEastern (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Annoying merging of references messing up quotes

Smakbot, normally very useful, however in this edit it has merged references to the same urls and in the process has dumped and confused two different quotations that I had included which where different in each case. I suggest that references with quotes are not merged. I realise that I could go to the length of creating a notes group but that seemed like too much complexity for this modest article. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it merges two instances of "n 1992 the police were given a new weapon when the first speed cameras were installed in west London. Trials on the M40 had shown just how frequently drivers broke the limit, when cameras capable of taking 400 snapshots on each roll of film had used up their quota in 40 minutes." and two instances of "the coalition Government is fulfilling a Tory pledge to do away with the yellow boxes which snap speeding drivers, by drastically slashing the funding that local councils receive for road safety." - am I missing something? it's a hard diff, especially with my eyes. Rich Farmbrough, 04:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Oh dear, sorry. After all these years I should probably have learnt to trust computers more and not to jump to conclusions without checking thoroughly. You are indeed correct that I copied the reference and the quote for some reason and SmackBot was therefore completely correct. Thank you for your rational and factful response. I am of course very pleased that reference merging is now deployed - spotting and merging duplicate references is very handy functionality. PeterEastern (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: .
Terminal user: VernoWhitney.
Terminal timestamp: 22:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC). *

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
---

Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification

Hi Rich! I saw you deleted Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification under criterion C1. The category should have had an empty category template if it didn't. A bot recreated it automatically, but it looks like it was recreated broken. Could you see about restoring the deleted version, or if there was more to it than a simple C1, could you catch me up, please? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, ok! Looks good. Sorry, I didn't even notice Femto was yours (though I should've known; you've got about a hundred now, right?) I'm waiting for my bot approval so I too can short out my propensity for dumb mistakes. :-) --Bsherr (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your MirrorBot request a few weeks ago. Very clever! What's the {{cat/Cat affair you speak of? --Bsherr (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I opened my big mouth on the bot approval discussion. I don't know if it's relevant specifically to the batch of rules you're seeking approval for with that particular one, but I'm a Smackbot fan. --Bsherr (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. Big bot runners are backops celebrities. Spend a few months building meta templates with me and tell me how many barnstars you get. Perhaps eventually I'll get one promoted to featured template status? Oh wait... :-) --Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, Template:Uw-block is "mine" (with Mechamind's support in implementing). I've been trying really hard on Template:BLP (see User:Bsherr/sandbox1), but there's no consensus due to lack of quorum. I like the idea of having a way to call for help with a template. I think the best would be to branch off of Template:Help me. But then I think about the degree to which that might overlap with a prospective "code help" template, which I also think would be a good thing. And then, I think about whether there's enough volume on "Help me" to warrant subtypes in the first place, and that maybe "Help me" should just be promoted as being for template issues too (and code issues). So I'm not sure what's best. --Bsherr (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, tell me about it! While I use it, I'm still not convinced I understand safesubst based on the WP:Substitution page. --Bsherr (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35

Template: .
Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough.
Terminal timestamp: 15:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC). *

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35

Template: .
Terminal user: Fram.
Terminal timestamp: 14:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC). *

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Articles about date formats

You should have SmackBot ignore them: [47]. –xeno^talk 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Pathological cases are hard. Notice however that AWB did not touch the similar dates in quotes. Those guys are hot programmers. Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: . *

Edits by:

Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough.
Terminal timestamp: 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 3

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough.
Terminal timestamp: 14:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
17:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Eurycoma longifolia

Yesterdays revision by you or one of the other Wikipedia savvy editors who did the last modifications requested citations on the use of Eurycoma longifolia in supplements for bodybuilders. I included such citations today. Naturally these citations refer to commercial sites. I worry that participants who patrol new edits may delete these citations as spam. It is not my intention to promote quackery by linking to it. But it's'hard to discuss quackery without citing quackery sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.66.204 (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know what you mean. I had the same problem with "toplist" -blindingly self evident to anyone who has been browsing for 10 years or more, but not subject of any "reliable sources" - it is as if no one had ever published anything on, say, cats, and we weren't allowed to mention them. The motivation is quite clearly good (to stop crackpots, quacks, self-promotion etc.) but occasionally we need "Ignore all rules". I'm sure they will be either left, improved or removed <insert smiley>. Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 5

Template: Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough.
Terminal timestamp: 14:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
17:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Smackbot comma

[48] ".,"
[49] "reason=date October 2010|date=October 2010"
[50] "date=September 2010|date=October 2010" ×2 + "date=October 2010|date=October 2010"
[51] "reason=date october 2010|date=October 2010" ×2
[52] broken URL

(95/100, 95%). —Sladen (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: the first is desired GF's, the third is because the bot can't make assumptions that a reason field is meant to be a date field. The second is a minor AWB bug, that I have seen before (maybe in the last day or two), but not reported, it wouldn't affect SmackBot if it was running with it's own rule-base, unless it was running GF's first, which I sometimes do, because in order to deal with certain things I have to disable some skips, which means AWB GF's can put stuff inside places where the MediaWiki software can't see it, which means my reg-gexes need to clean up after the GFs. It's an art, you know, not a science. Ill log that bughttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&action=edit&section=9 though, FWIW. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

And thanks for the fourth one: that's actually a fixed URL though:

Before: [347=x-347-359656&als[theme]=AT+Law+and+Policy Terrorism Profile - Uganda] Privacy International
After: [347]=x-347-359656&als[theme]=AT+Law+and+Policy Terrorism Profile - Uganda Privacy International

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Hm perhaps I should have said partially fixed.... Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

It should be

Working: Terrorism Profile - Uganda Privacy International

Will log a buglet. Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

(edit conflict)×2. Could you have a look at the first one again, it inserts "Millennium Stadium., which" when possible fixes should either be Millennium Stadium. Which" or Millennium Stadium, which" AFAICT. Thanks for taking them upstream. Any idea on the broken URL? —Sladen (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes sure. Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

The devs were talking about this very problem, this particular combination is non-trivial because it could be (for example) "...Millennium Stadium Ltd., which..." I will check the feature request page and see what happened. Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Excellent, could I ask you to look at the third one again, there is no "reason=" field involved. Just a double-insertion of "date=". —Sladen (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll double check but you cite "reason=date october 2010|date=October 2010" ×2; yourself. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Ah no it's just my counting. Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Numbering by your diffs 1= comma, 2=reason (not-a-bug), 3=Date/date order effect, 4=reason (not-a-bug), 5=url. Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Okay, for (2) and (4), is there any chance those could be detected and at least flagged for a double-check by a human (who can see instantly what the matter is)? —Sladen (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If I put in a BRFA - and it's not that I can't write code to pick up these cases, nor yet that they are vanishingly rare, it's the principle of "first do no harm" : for example suppose someone writes "The July 2010 Stadium was opened in September 2010." and someone else flags it "{{Clarify}}", ({{Clarify|reason= date=September 2010}}) then taking the reason out would be wrong. The reason parameter is usually harmless. Further SB usually runs every day, I put extra effort into trying to run just before the end of the month, so the chance of getting the wrong month by more than a day (not that that is much of an issue in small numbers anyway) is remote. Except when some silly **** blocks the bot - which will cause mis-dates for about 6000 articles. Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

BRFA being prepared: archiving for section link. Rich Farmbrough, 16:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
--

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 23:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER wsa by Xeno at 16:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 23:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 23:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
23:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35

Template: . *

Edits by:

Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough.
Terminal timestamp: 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
19:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Update to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Terminal user: Rich Farmbrough.
Terminal timestamp: 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 17:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
17:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 36

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 23:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
23:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
--

Name drop

I've just mentioned your name at the move discussion over at Template talk:Plot2, hope that was ok. Actually, I wouldn't mind your input there, as you can probably offer more insight than I. Regards. PC78 (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Where...

...is the task approval to replace a template with a template redirect? [53] –xeno^talk 15:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Much obliged. –xeno^talk 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It still seems to be making the changes: [54][55][56][57]. - Bilby (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmph, need a bigger spanner to hit the bot with. Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks Bilby. Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

No problem. It all seems good now. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Replacing template with template redirect

Why are you replacing the WPBiography template with a redirect? [58] Wishful thinking? If you want WPBiography to be moved, initiate a requested move discussion. Ditto {{Film}} [59]. –xeno^talk 13:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it is easier to read. WP stands for Wikipedia too. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think you should increase the transclusion count for a page because you think it is easier to read. –xeno^talk 13:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why wasn't this moved to WikiProject Film? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I passed over it in my standardization runs (as with any other that looked like they would be disputed), see Template talk:Film/Archive 2009#Template name for the last discussion on it. –xeno^talk 14:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are five non-standard, of which four have the standard as a redirect. I have had a couple of queries about using the redirect but no complaints. Personally I don't have the energy to even raise these last 5 issues, although often people are quite amenable to change, if the case can be made. At the time of the last "film" discussion there were hundreds of non-standard banners, so it was a different situation. Biography will probably not mind as long as they aren't given a misleading impression that they need to do something different or onerous. Roads - I steer clear of since SPUI days - I guess that shouldn't be a problem, but you can't always tell. MILHIST again,no reason for them to oppose except that they seem attached to their VVVETLA. As for the other one the less I have to do with that banner the better - it is putting a coding overhead on 3 million pages for no reason other than obduracy and a desire to retain the status quo, and I'd rather not have anything to do with it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

If you'd rather not have anything to do with it, don't change it into a redirect =] –xeno^talk 14:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That is the only one that doesn't have a redirect! Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Oh, you mean the maths one. –xeno^talk 14:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"increase the transclusion count for a page". Do what John, pardon, come again? Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

By replacing a template with a template redirect, you've increased the number of pages transcluded by one (before: WPBiography; after: WikiProject Biography & WPBiography). –xeno^talk 14:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I would use the term the other way around (increasing the transclusion count of {{WikiProject Biography}} by one), but it makes sense either way. I don't see it as a problem though, redirects are cached, talk pages are low traffic, Mag will have them moved in a trice... Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

If and when they are moved via the standard channels you can use the WikiProject Foo names; until then I don't think it is a good idea to replace them with redirects, lest you be accused of attempting to change the name by fait accompli. –xeno^talk 14:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@xeno: Hm... This seems it was before the big standardisation process. I think we could try again. I think now it's obvious that all projects should follow the same standards. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. –xeno^talk 14:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Template_talk:Film#Renaming_to_WikiProject_films. Please your opinion there. Support will be appreciated :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I was unclear, but my question was also a thinly-veiled request for you to not replace templates with template redirects. –xeno^talk 15:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Failure to adhere to conditions

As far as I can tell, this bot was unblocked in consideration of your expected adherence to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough#Conditions that would satisfy X!, Kingpin13, MSGJ, and others. It appears the bot is once again changing initial-letter capitalization without consensus/approval [60]. This appears to be done by AWB's general fixes or autotagger; that being said, you are responsible for your tools and ensuring they edit in a manner compliant with the unblock conditions. –xeno^talk 13:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

After the initial fun of the pile-on while I was blocked, everyone lost interest in discussing any solution there - DaPiep who seems to have a little problem and GiftigerWunsh, who seems more calm commented nearly four days later. My previous offer on my talk page went unreplied to. However I will review leaving the first letter on a page uncapitalised - I am unclear whether you or the IP actually think {{Talk header}} is an abomination, see it as your civic duty to reign in changes which mean a page starts with a capital rather than lowercase, regardless of personal preferences, are trying to protect me from the howling mob, or a bit of all three. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

I just think that the initial-case of templates is an entirely personal preference, and bots shouldn't be changing the case absent a community consensus that ucfirst is preferred (I would similarly query a bot operator whose bot was doing the opposite, i.e. Talk header-> talk header), but realize that this is (now) an AWB general fix issue that at least one of the developers is refusing to address - leaving you in a sticky situation where you (or your bot) risks being blocked unless you reprogram the framework or turn off general fixes. –xeno^talk 13:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem I can work around the Talk header thing one way or another. However the majority of templates on WP are ucfirst, (even given that we are all lazy (or busy) and often type lc when it doesn't break stuff) so that is some kind of general consensus, although I accept that mileage varies with "Cite". An example: a stub sorter asked me to tag with "stub" instead of "Stub" - not because of stylistic preferences, but because deleting the capital S and typing a small on, on the scale and speed they worked at was a productivity issue - of course I was happy to oblige. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

I wish they would just change it to leave the caps alone. My bot seems to make these changes too! And I'm not as proficient as you in AWB's code (read: not at all), so working around it will be harder (read: impossible) for me. –xeno^talk 14:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

← Instead of arguing on Talk/talk header, I think we have to start tracking editors who add talk header to talk pages without any obvious reason. I tried to get this template deleted at some point but there were reactions. The result is that some editors solely add Talk headers in talk pages, sometimes they even create talk pages with only that. I asked to a Filter to avoid these cases but nothing happened. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that editors shouldn't be added talk header willy-nilly, that's a red herring to the issue in question (i.e. the same concern would apply to {{skip to talk}} -> {{Skip to talk}}). –xeno^talk 14:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame (on the red herring) that so many articles have effectively empty but existent talk pages - had we had hidden cats when Projects took off it would probably not have happened. But it used to be very effective when editing an article to see a blue talk page link hinted that there was something worth looking at. Ah http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org ... Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

We could do that. I don't see many talk pages that are just talk headers, though. Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

What about pages with talk header but no ==sections== and no archives? In that case, I could see a case being made for simply removing it. –xeno^talk 14:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Or simply deleting the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

...if there were no WikiProject banners. –xeno^talk 16:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

natchRich Farmbrough, 11:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

--

SmackBot

Hello Rich Farbrough, i would like to report this partly incorrect edit of your bot. Wikiproject magic is something different than wikiproject Magic:The gathering. greetings --Narayan (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess the : Tripped something up, although it is odd. A real bug report! Rich Farmbrough, 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Ok found it, will check out the existing mtg pages and move them to the full name. Then review any that might have been wrongly changed. Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Done. Hope that helps. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Seems like everything is ok and corrected now, thanks! --Narayan (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

SmackBot

Hi Rich. The SmackBot is replacing {{Film}} with {{WikiProject Films}} on talk pages (comme ci), but the latter just redirects to the former. I don't know if you can change this or not, but thought I would let you know. BOVINEBOY2008 04:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. All but a handful (over 500 IIRC) of projects use WikiProject XXXX and the home for their banner template and WikiProject XXXX is valid for all but one. Rich Farmbrough, 07:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Picking nits: Can you check the "do not use section edit summaries" ? –xeno^talk 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

'tis done. Not sure the advantage though. Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Just cleaner edit summaries (the section isn't relevant). –xeno^talk 17:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally people are asking for more info. CBM demanded a build number. Gurch wanted no build number though. Someone else wants more detailed summary. I'm for streamlining it, it's all bytes. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Relevant details, but the fact that the unsigned template being subst'ed was in xyz subsection hardly seems relevant. –xeno^talk 19:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

One wikipedians RD's are another's wikicruft. p Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

---

Talk header

Haven't you been requested many, many times to stop making capitalization changes? Why is SmackBot right now changing {{talk header}} to {{Talk header}}? Phantasten (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock: red linked? Only edit is <refernces/> => {{reflist}}?

Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me

Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Was there a need to be juvenile or suspicious? I edit at fr:wp and wikispecies under a different username and here as an IP, not usually bothering to log in. I'd like an answer to my first question, please. Phantasten (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes there was a need to be suspicious. A sole trivial edit which is one that the same type of person that has a problem with capitalisation objects to: I can find you examples of editors (admin) claiming that change breaks policy. Why don't you use your fr. and wikispecies identity here, choosing instead what looks like a throw-away account? As to being juvenile, you have a choice, on my talk page, between being met with good humour and sensible discussion, or just sensible discussion. Personally I think I am doing well to maintain good humour when people are behaving the way they have recently: although not choosing to follow "noticeboards" closely I was unaware that several of them had boxes of megaphones. <shrug> Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

I'm unaware why you think someone would use a sock account to ask if what your bot is doing is legitimate and approved. Your suspicion is puzzling (also unexpected and unwarranted). How do you suggest I go about getting an answer to my post? Is a noticeboard my best option here? The stop button on SmackBot? Phantasten (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

People do funny things on WP, like make threats. But I can answer your questions, let me check a few facts first. Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

OK I have reviewed 3,000 threads in my talk archive, E&OE, prior to 21 September 2010 the number of requests was 1. Rich Farmbrough, 13:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Seems like a bit of a selective count, then. Did you include threads like this, where you just brushed off the concern? –xeno^talk 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No I explained that {fact|July 2008}} was wrong and wouldn't work , and therefore the edit wasn't inconsequential - most users choose not to see, or don't know about hidden categories. Moreover I also said 1 request (E&OE), therefore if you do succeed in finding request number 2 or even 3 out of 3000 threads (and far, far, more comments), I shall not be chastised, although I will admire your patience. I will still say the answer to "Haven't you been requested many, many times to stop making capitalization changes?" is no. I haven't reviewed post HEADBOMB, but as far as I can remember there were 5 people active on my talk page. Without being picky "many" to me would imply more than 6, let alone "many many". And this is what I find frustrating. We are chasing a chimera here, arising from a legitimate concern - or to be more accurate, two legitimate concerns, of Headbomb and Amalthea. And the noise created on my talk page in those few hours meant that I missed the messages that actually mattered from Headbomb - and were also the reason I cleared my page (and hence that much drama ensued) and have my own bots look after it now. Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

A bit of semantics, then. I think you've had many people query you about these unnecessary capitalization changes, whether or not they specifically requested you to stop making them is another story, I guess. –xeno^talk 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I skimmed your last couple of archives before asking and took away an impression—and apologies that I didn't phrase well. My question was not meant to be taken that literally, anyway, I really just wanted to know why the {{Talk header}} edits were being made. (An AWB issue, perhaps, as mentioned by Xeno.) (I have no idea what E&OE means.) Phantasten (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

errors and omissions excepted. –xeno^talk 14:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it would have been clever to have tried searching first. Sorry and thanks. Phantasten (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just glad we have this encyclopedia around to help us when we're arguing about template case ;> –xeno^talk 14:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's more about "Talkheader" "Talkpageheader" "TalkHeader" etc => "Talk header" than "talk header" => "Talk header". As far as the queries are concerned I'm not going to do a census of them but most of them were either the < .01 % of edits that are dealt with in the FAQ, or some other aspect of the edit was missed or not understood., such as changing Date= to date=. Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

---

Can you suggest-a-bot

Hello (again). Sorry to bother you. I need a bot to do a simple swap of two terms in ~2000 articles. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Ignoring_right_or_wrong_-_can_we_fix_the_articles for all the sordid details. I've added a request at bot requests, but all I need is the name of a bot operator that has a bot that would do this. Can supply a list of containing the swaps. Do you know of such a bot, I'm sure one already exists.. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignore this, a volunteer has appeared. on Wikipedia:Bot_requests Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

---

WP:Talk or WP:Harass

Hi. Talk or harass. you choose. Now. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Come back when you can form a proper, civil sentence. Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Re: Minor bug with transclusion counter

Yup, good spot. Fixed now (I think). Of course, it's still broken for people who try to rewrite the URL themselves, but there's no way to fix that AFAIK. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 16:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC) ---

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

News and notes: Board resolutions, fundraiser challenge, traffic report, ten thousand good articles, and more

In the news: Free culture conference, "The Register" retracts accusations, students blog about Wikipedia, and more

WikiProject report: WikiProject Smithsonian Institution

Features and admins: Big week for ships and music

Dispatches: Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd

Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Okhotsk Airport

you put an unreferenced banner in a 1 sentence stub? I find this ridiculous and will have it removed.

err no hard feelings --Poohunter (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC) ---

Bug report

[61] WP → WikiProject Islam? Where did that come from? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. Came from the unused (probably never used) WP:Islam template redirect. There are about 4 templates like this, I've reviewed the ruleset, and an checking transclusions of WikiProject Islam now. Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Done Edits reviewed and rule-set clean, but I still need to change the rule-set generator. Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Template_talk:Citation_needed#Reinserting_Merge_discussion_template.
Message added 07:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 07:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

---

SmackBot

This bot, User:SmackBot, tagged an article as unreferenced with a category, plants.[62] Does this bot have a dump of such articles? Can this bot be used to locate and tag unreferenced articles in a specific category? I have used the Cat intersection tool to find some such articles, but it does not pull them all for some reason. I would like the unreferenced Algae articles added to a task page in the WikiProject Algae area, if possible. Is there a link to what this bot does? Yes, I still want the other link, also. Thanks. --KMLP (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not as such - I could make a list of Algae articles that needed tagging, as of the last dump: tag them and then make a list of algae articles with an unref. tag. (No I have not forgotten your other request - I have 6 tabs open related to it.)Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

That would be very useful, any way I could put all unreferenced algae articles in one location and begin referencing. Can you create a subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae with the list of unreferenced algae articles?

What other tags can you add? The orphan tags on non-stub algae articles would also be useful, again, with a list, if that's doable? I assume it would require more than is already coded for, to not orphan tag species articles, but I can hand readily remove orphan tags from the species if I have a list. Thanks for the help! --KMLP (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you're just adding the orphan tags even to stubs, but that will actually work for sorting the articles, so please just continue. Thanks. --KMLP (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The unref articles I could find, extending the search to Category:Algae were:

list

Rich Farmbrough, 01:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, got them on their own page for work. --KMLP (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I turned up another 36 that need some sort of tag change, but so far none have had "unref" added. Will note here if there are any. Rich Farmbrough, 02:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

--

Theater Aachen

A bot made an entry about dates on Theater Aachen which I don't understand, please explain here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is just noting that that article uses dates like 12 May 2101, not May 12, 2101. Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. You seem to look at the future, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Train2104's talk page.
Message added 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

---

Proposed deletion of The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1974)

The article The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1974) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No content. Wikipedia is not a list of things that didn't happen. Completionist dreck.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC) ---

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe

I can see why you made this edit. However, the article's name was changed from Countries of Europe to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe in order to exclude countries that are not sovereign states. Consequently, the discussions linked are no longer relevant to that page. Are you OK to delete the links, or shall I? Daicaregos (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Appreciate it. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 08:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

trivial edits again

This edit [63] did not date any tags, despite the edit summary. The AWB people tell me that you can tell AWB not to save if only general fixes are applied. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 11:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Rearranging references

[64]. I will block the bot if future runs have this problem. I have reported this on probably a dozen separate occasions now, it's time to fix it permanently as you said you would. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mārtiņš Lācis

As a relatively significant contributor to the entry for Mārtiņš Lācis (the creator of the entry seems to have been banned), you might be interested to know that I proposed the Deletion of it, due to lack of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I placed the tag in the Discussion page. Moving it to the front. -The Gnome (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

IOOF

Hi Rich! No big deal - I'm just a bit puzzled. This edit says you changed

[[Image:Odd Fellows Hall and Marker.JPG|thumb|[[Odd Fellows Hall (Occoquan, Virginia)]].]]

but I can't spot the difference. Can you? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the difference doesn't survive a cut and paste. Barring errors I cut three lines from each revision and pasted them into User:Rich Farmbrough/temp100. I then swopped the first and last three lines and saved, and the edit didn't register. Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Given that you made the edit manually, what were you trying to achieve with it? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Migrating the problem items of Category:Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases to Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases. Rich Farmbrough, 13:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

I meant, what were you trying to achieve when you edited that particlar line of the file? You did it by hand, not with AWB, so you went out of your way to edit that line about the image. What did you have in mind when you were editing it, given that there is no visible difference in the output or source code? I'll dig out od and figure out what the actual change was. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Was obviously done by AWB. –xeno^talk 14:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits that use AWB should all be marked as such, especially when the user is already responding to complaints about AWB use. I think this must have been an accident. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Rich's reprogramming of AWB to omit the 'using AWB' line represents a violation of the letter and spirit of his unblock. –xeno^talk 14:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I just determined that myself, using wget - of course I was puzzled why my tests hadn't worked (last time I saw something like this it was an invisible Unicode character). the reason is that my javascript strips trailing spaces out which means I was comparing post-processed text with post processed text. As to why the diff doesn't show it, as it usually does, MW bug I presume. There are several in the land of Diff. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Bare subst tags

Another critical error from today's run: [65]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a critical error because the tags could get substed by accident at any later point, which would make the date wrong if that point is several months in the future. It's extremely fragile to have these things floating around in articles. However, I thought AWB was able to avoid this problem by temporarily stripping comments and nowiki blocks, or some similar method. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be less wrong than if it wasn't there: example - gets 30 November by an edit and gets put in November's pot - aliter with no subst: present it gets dated by a bot the following day and gets put in December's pot. Moreover the movement of a few articles from one monthly category to another, even after they have been tagged is not a major concern (although I am considering steps for BLPs, notability and promotional cats to prevent this being done deliberately). The main thrust of the exercise is to put articles in monthly pots to provide 1. ability to ensure that "hard cases" aren't left forever 2. some kind of progress indicator. Rich Farmbrough, 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Don't you use the timestamp in the categorylinks table to try to tell which month the article was actually added to the category? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, since the thing was commented out in the first place, it would never show up on a progress indicator. The reason it was tagged was by side-effect when some other tag was dated.

Still, this is an error in your bot that you need to fix before starting it again. It should not be adding bare subst tags to articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference templates are messed up now

I think your edit here may have caused a glitch in the template. It now displays like this on all pages where it is used. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The way the template now displays in article space is not the same as it appears on the template page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

As Rich appears to have logged off I have made an request at ANI as the template is fully protected. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to the template for purely technical reasons. Feel free to reinsert what you were doing without accidentally breaking the template. :) --Conti|✉ 20:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

Turns out someone broke Findsources, and that there was some previous discussion on this. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

{{Findsources}} was last edited some two weeks before you made these edits (Is it still broken then?). To me this implicates you did not take a look at the effects. No sandbox, no testing, no aftercheck in article space. Also, I cannot relate "some previous discussion" to these actions. Did you see that (undisclosed) discussion, and acted according to its outcome? Did you miss that discussion, and does it in hindsight have implications for your intention in this? Whichever way, quite obfuscating explanation here. And since you are at a template-maintenance level that can unprotect-protect templates, could you also maintain the /documentation? -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agricultural marketing

What changes did you make here? I am totally confused. Thanks Agricmarketing (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Category:All accuracy disputes

I've undeleted Category:All accuracy disputes, which you deleted as an "empty category" as it has several hundred entries and is populated by a template - {{Self published}}. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It was empty, but someone who didn't know what they were doing tampered. Rich Farmbrough, 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

Could that "someone" be you? How come you saw an empty cat? -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Could that someone... be Mack the Knife? Rich Farmbrough, 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Rather attributing blame, could we just please ensure that whatever process caused the cat to be deleted is fixed. —Sladen (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was looking into that, Sladen, but RF's evasiveness was not helpfull. (Also, there is another "someone" Richard introduces, and has moved to Archive quite fast. This someone has not been found yet).

This is what happened:

17:52, 14 October 2010 [66], Template:Selfpublished(edit talk links history): RF rm link to Category:All accuracy disputes from code. es:remove "all..." cats, cut down on category clutter.
19:05, 15 October 2010 [67], Category:All accuracy disputes: RF deleted the cat. es:C1: Empty category.

Notes: The template was the only template (left?) that created links to Category:All accuracy disputes. CSD:C1 requires four days of empty cat. All edits have been undone by now.

There was discussion at the VPP/More maintenance-templates are mentioned.

I conclude Richard is the one ("someone who didn't know what they were doing") that emptied the category. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:BLP unsourced

Resolved

See Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove for the discussion.
Amalthea 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I found PBS's edit comment on {{Unreferenced}} a few minutes ago. Funny how people revert without dropping a note. Incidentally that was discussed on Village Pump, and my comments there were somewhat naive - I was half expecting protests, as happens with anything and everything. Instead there was quiet acceptance, and even jollification, followed by silent reverts. Guess I'm going to have to find a way to see when I get reverted, otherwise we just get BR and no D. Thanks again for the note. Rich Farmbrough, 22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

Heh, you mean like a watchlist? :) But yeah, I was in one such small VP discussion once too and added it to Template:BLP sources 18 months ago, but it hadn't near the participation from the RFC, so …
Cheers, Amalthea 22:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - and it is more usable than I thought, the remaining 20k items were nearly all low-traffic non-articles (I had got up to "V" cleaning the articles out). I do sympathise with the points raised at the RFC - but the bottom line seems to be "it's OK to drive experienced editors to Google, but not inexperienced ones" or "We can give Google traffic but not be seen to be giving them traffic". I'm now waiting for my Google T shirt for putting over 1 million links to their site, however briefly... as someone said think of the page rank! <chuckle> Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

Watchlists... y'know... —Sladen (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot dif info

This [68] is really no big deal, but I assume you may wish to program the bot so it's not leaving behind both the {{cat improve}} and the {{uncat}} tags together. Regards -- WikHead (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, would be good. Consider it on the list. Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

rev 7306 Tagger: don't mark as {{uncat}} if has {{cat improve}}. Rjwilmsi 14:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

There are only half a dozen of these wiki-wide:

Heilpraktiker
John FitzGerald (career coach)
Miles Meadows
Miss B Hollywood
Registro de Identidade Civil
Reverse Expo
RubyKaigi
StarGames

Rich Farmbrough, 14:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Should all be fixed now. Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Today

Speaking about your edits today alone, you seem to have managed to break every single one of AWB's Rules of Use, as well as a number of other Wikipedia policies/guidelines - Presuming that it is AWB you are using to make your recent high speed edits. Frankly, why? You keep going on about how much you just want to help Wikipedia and dislike it when people get in your way. But your edits aren't helping Wikipedia..

Are you actually checking your edits? If so why are you continuing to make edits which you know aren't wanted? And which you've said would stop? If not you're not abiding by WP:BOT.
You are using your main account to make bot like edits, possibly using a bot, although you always seem to like to avoid that subject for some reason..
You said you'd stop messing about with title whitespace and template capitalisation, yet nearly all your recent edits seem to change this. This edit and this edit in particular are disappointing. The edits are clearly insignificant and controversial.
You've managed to abuse rollback in an edit war with another admin.
Why aren't you using edit summaries?

I strongly suggest you stop making these edits.. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to give Asperger a kick to get it out of the category "Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases from January 2008" which was inhabited only by Hans and possibly Ron. Rich Farmbrough, 12:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Oh really, so how exactly would changing the template capitalisation help with that? Don't you think that maybe removing {{by whom|date=January 2008}} would have been a better method? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really, that would have failed to move it into Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from January 2008 Rich Farmbrough, 12:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

I see.. I didn't spot the difference between those two categories before. Still unacceptable, you should know much better than to use that as an excuse for controversial edits, a null edit (note: NOT dummy edit) would have been more suitable. Using an extreme example, it wouldn't be okay for me to vandalise a page, and then say "well the page need an edit to make it update it's categories" would it? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not an extreme example, it's something completely different. That's like comparing a polite offer to buy a coffee for a stranger in a McDonalds queue with pulling out a semi-automatic, spraying the customers and insisting on being served first. Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

It's not completely different, but yes it's not a particularly good example. Ignore my example then, and please address the actual concern behind it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I edited a couple of articles and made small, or even insignificant changes to get them correctly catted, maybe I should have null edited them. I can't get excited about it. On any measure (bandwidth, database size, editor time, aggro) this thread is more expensive than the edits. Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

This thread wouldn't exist if you would observe editing guidelines, community norms, and the conditions of your unblock. –xeno^talk 15:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

dead link template used in a ref

See Kevin Yoder. I added the dead link template at the end of a ref, and the bot added SUBST and such which made the References section look very odd. Flatterworld (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, known bug, awaiting bot approvals to implement fix. Rich Farmbrough, 20:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

News and notes: Wikipedia fundraiser event, Frankfurt book fair, news in brief

WikiProject report: Show Me the Money: WikiProject Numismatics

Features and admins: A week for marine creatures

Dispatches: Common issues seen in Peer review

Arbitration report: Climate change case closes after 4 months

Technology report: Video subtitling tool, staff vs. volunteer developers, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 14:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 15:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 14:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 15:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 14:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Stacey Slater

Hi Rich

Can I ask why SmackBot made this edit to Stacey Slater's talk page? From what I can see it doesn't seem to have changed anything, the links that the bot edited are still going to the same page and they didn't previously seem to have been redirected. Very confused as to why the bot has carried out the edits --5 albert square (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the explanation, it's appreciated and good luck with the catchup! :) --5 albert square (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tags

Your tasks say that SmackBot dates orphan tags, not that it places them. Can I see the task about adding orphan tags to articles? Is it somewhere else? Thanks. --KMLP (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll dig around, although it may be just part of the AWB general fixes, which I am a big fan of, that have developed enormously over the past 5 years. Have you had problems arising form it? Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

I'd think they're part of the autotagger. –xeno^talk 17:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have a problem with orphan tags and most maintenance tags that are put at the top of articles while they are being created and do not serve to alert the reader of article deficiencies, but are instead to attract editing fixes. It should go on the talk page. But that's another discussion.

I think that creating a good, needed article is more important than orphan tagging it, and, giving an editor a reasonable amount of time to create the article shows this. It also prevents sending editors off creating unhelpful and unneeded links in the midst of writing their article--something bots can't check for.

So, this was not an AWB fix, as I understand them to be guided by humans, it was listed as a bot edit. I would like to see what the algorithm is for adding orphan tags to articles for the bot task. Thanks. --KMLP (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm assuming that you are talking about Megabias? The the reason that the bot visited it was to date the "Expand section" tags, however it couldn't do that due to the limitations recently place on it my me, in response to some events. Normally that would mean it would skip the article, but since the autotagger (as xeno rightly says) tagged it as orphan (the algorithm being "no (zero) main-space links, not a redirect, dab or sia") there was a successful dating of a tag.

If you want to keep AWB bots and most people off your work in progress then I would suggest {{In-use}}.

This is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed.
This page was last revised at 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC) (8 years ago). Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited in several hours. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Underconstruction}} between editing sessions.

Sorry the tag inconvenienced you, hope that helps. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Is it so much to ask, give an editor 24 hours to create an article, rather than demand they know preventative measures to be allowed to edit unencumbered for a reasonable amount of time? I'd still like a link to the discussion about the bot applying orphan tags. Thanks. --KMLP (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no time limit on creating articles, just because there is a tag, doesn't mean that it's your responsibility to fix it. Implicit approval for general fixes is here. There is much discussion since about the GF algorithm for orphaning, the upshot being that an optional setting (which I use) will only tag if there are zero mains-pace links, where the guidelines suggested tagging on 0, 1 or 2. As far as I know no one has suggested a grace period for tagging, things get speedy deleted within minutes of creation - tagging is fairly mild in comparison, and it would be exceedingly difficult to implement. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Tthere is a generally accepted community grace period for tagging when it comes to newbie editors, although the megabias tag was outside of it, please see:

Special:NewPages--"don't bite the newcomers, cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can discourage new users."

--New page patrolTagging anything other than attack pages, copyvio, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author.

It's in bold on both of these pages. The community considers it important.

I am trying to bring in scientific editors and photographers to wikipedia as a project, to edit in areas which need a tremendous amount of work from writers who are experts in their areas and can write well for the general reader. While anyone can edit, it's not always true that anyone can write good articles at an appropriate general encyclopedia level on some highly technical aspects of phylogenetic systematics, evolutionary molecular biology, taphonomical biases, electron microscopy in the life sciences, and algae sensu lato.

I would like to understand how bot tagging works, so that I can explain it to other editors in my project. The link you give me is for a request to fixing ISBN numbers. I am concerned with how the orphan tagging task has been approved by the community, not general fixes to ISBN numbers. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I should be able to find community discussion on automated orphan tagging - I thought you were talking about SB's specific authorisation. As far as a general explanation of bot tagging is concerned, I can't answer fully for other bots, but SmackBot is unlikely to visit a page that is a few minutes old, or indeed untagged (this page had "Expand section" on it) - the reason for this is that a standard run takes in the order of hours, other stuff is generally driven off database dumps which are likely to be at least a few days old. The possible exception is if it has a broken HTML ref tag, or similar, even then the chance of it being a few minutes old is slim. Moreover the "Uncategorized" and "Stub" tags will get the article pretty quick help by the experts at categorization. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

Yes, I don't see SmackBot in the "tagging articles in two minutes category," but I do point out this lack of consensus for doing just that whenever I run into a wikipedia editor who thinks there is no community consensus against it, as there is. Yes, I do want to see SB's specific authorization for orphan tagging. You have a lot of bots, you appear to work with the community; I though I'd start here, with this particular authorization. I can find the community consensus at the orphan project. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel like an idiot. I thought you did lots of useful stuff with bots, and I checked the type of edits you made, excellent article clean-ups of all sorts of details, although I was concerned about this task, and couldn't understand it from the bot page; but still, it seemed like you would be useful for editing some encyclopedia pages. I see below, however, that you are caught in the discuss-behaviour-forever-loop, due to having irritated someone, for, it appears, excessive capitalization of templates? I would like some help from a bot-wielding editor for homogenizing and cleaning up large groups of articles. Maybe you can suggest someone else or let me know when you will be back editing rather than not editing? The articles I edit have very small audiences and huge irregularities in codes. I am editing as much as I can, and I have AWB, but they need someone with technical understanding of templates, categories, sorting references, etc. (I was reading your edits to encyclopedia articles, not to wikipedia and talk pages, which is how I missed it.) I'm still interested in the bot task, but, not cut-throat interested, so I leave that. Oh well. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Would be better not to misspell template in your edit summaries

Just for completeness. Rjwilmsi 19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, or anywhere else. I always type "tempalte" these days:- I was wondering if javascript could fix it in the search box. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Moreover, what makes these edits different than those that you were recently blocked for? Given the repeated spelling error, it's clear you're using some kind of automated process - (probably AWB, but you've hacked out the "using AWB" bit). This is inappropriate. –xeno^talk 19:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you never use ctrl-V or the edit-summary drop-down list? Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Pull the other one - it's even got the AWB section-edit summaries. Even if you're doing this manually (which strains credulity), it's a violation of the spirit of your unblock. –xeno^talk 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There was never any suggestion that I was limited to browser edits. Not by any sane person. Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

The conditions of the unblock were "All 'bot-like tasks ... no matter how uncontroversial, to be farmed out to non-administrator accounts". Bypassing "References necessary" to "Citation needed" [69] seems bot-like enough to me (the kind of edit users might want to be hidden by a bot-flag) (and trivial/insignificant). But maybe I'm not sane? –xeno^talk 15:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Eight edits per minute[70], without using automation?... —Sladen (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are we playing "Aha!" ? Like I said on ANI it's fun, but it's not productive. I can find you editing at 15 edits per minute, so what? Or other people at 78 per minute... I was blocked by a 'crat within 8 minutes of ANI, despite that fact that there was no editing happening. But 10 days after leaving a query on their page I get no answer. I'm interested in getting some work done, not pissing around with edit rates, which tool is being used, some double standards where I am expected to stop everything because someone objects to one facet of what I'm doing - meanwhile people doing the same thing - automated - just get ignored. Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

It's not one facet. It's the same facets I see again here, and again: {{flagicon}}; blanket non-specific edit summaries; claimed ignorance of previous requests (in this case, unauthorised bot-like activity from an admin account); complaining about others instead of reporting to points/questions; ...

I went to great lengths in guiding you to the position of getting unblocked; my hope remains that you will stop doing the actions that you were requested (repeatedly) not to do on various (multiple) occasions—and which ultimately got you blocked.

If you are still getting flak, you are doing something wrong... if you don't want to get the flak, either fix the issues when they are raised (rather than responding by ranting about Wikipedia policies, or the conduct of others)—or resist undertaking the specific activities that are getting you the flak. —Sladen (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You had nothing to do with my unblocking. On the contrary it was your and Xeno's comments in irrelevant threads that made my talk page such a pile of garbage I had to clear it, and prompted Q Science to post at ANI. I'm sure you thought it was helpful, but it wasn't. I also appreciate you taking the trouble to review the reflist edits, but you still don't seem to have grasped that they were correct. And while I'm happy to explain this stuff to you , when you jump in and accuse me of "ranting" I wonder if it's worthwhile. You said, for example in an edit summary "If their weren't errors there wouldn't be threads" - without actually counting the threads or even reading them I guess. There were requests to do work, thanks for stuff, queries, even a Signpost. Not everyone comments only to complain. Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

I know how you feel Rich, Magio just got blocked today and I only escaped because I moved onto other tasks. I'm starting to think there's some AWB user profiling going on. --Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

People think we are here to police each other's actions. We are here to build an encyclopedia. <shrug> It's what I have been doing and what I will continue to do. And with the amount of work I do I expect to draw a fair cross-section of Wiki-life into my talk pages, 99% of them are reasonable, 99% are reasonably intelligent, 99% are reasonably patient. That's good enough, it has to be. Rich Farmbrough, 02:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

Ideally editors police themselves. Ideally editors police their bots too. It should not have to fall to other editors to be reporting issues in (unreviewed) bot, or semi-bot edits. —Sladen (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've on more than one occasion found WP a strange and surreal place, and this seems to be one of them. 'Could there be just a tiny bit of nit-picking going on?'
I ask myself... today we have complaints of a typo in Rich's edit summary... So ^&#$(*#+ what??? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the original reporter is highlighting. The original reporter (I believe) is highlighting the unauthorised use of AWB on an admin-enabled main account (something that contributed to the previous block), the large-scale unchecked mis-spelling being a symptom of this. —Sladen (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there some sort of user white list for AWB? I didn't think it was possible to use it without authorisation... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to download the source code, modify it (to get around the whitelist (note: admins are automatically approved fyi)/allow fully-automated editing etc.) and then compile from a personal computer. Which I believe Rich has done (certainly he's been accused of it many times and has never directly denied it, although he's been asked directly if that's what he's done) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is really off track; nonetheless:

I am authorised to use AWB.
CBM insisted that I either take out the ref-reordering or stop using Gen fixes. This I have done, with great (and justified - it would seem) reluctance. I have also, since then;
1. Test-fixed one or two bugs/FRs, which I have posted to AWB pages and removed another GF I disagree with, although I suspect that those changes have been lost when I got new versions of the software.
2. Recently played with the "using" string so that I can report whether SB is using the damaged version CBM requires - it is reasonably hard in a real life situation to make sure SB always uses it , and I use the proper version.
3. Put some timing code in to try to identify some timeouts.

That's about it. AWB is my only exposure to C#, and is an intricate, one might say esoteric, piece of code, what looks like an assign or test might invoke scores of procedures across many modules, using both AWB defined and library classes. As regular readers of this page will know, <chuckle> I prefer simplicity. Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Could I just confirm that SmackBot should not be making reference-reshuffling edits such as [71] then? —Sladen (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No you can confirm that on particular editor, has an objection, and therefore I avoid doing it. SmackBot absolutely should be doing it, but one guy has an extreme position on the subject, and I like to go with the flow. Rich Farmbrough, 21:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

And what, pray, is wrong with reordering refs??? GACs and FACs insist upon refs being in correct order, so I would consider this to be a boon not to have to do these manually. There really is no pleasing everybody --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well quite... What I'm trying to determine here are the bounds that CBM has placed on SmackBot operation above and beyond the general BAG processes. With some hard facts about what has been mandated, we can perhaps analyse those for sanity and get them adjusted if they are not sane or helpful to Wikipedia. Personally, if the edit summary correctly states what is being done and the edit has been checked-over by a human I am supportive! —Sladen (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

the edit has been checked-over by a human Um... that would be cool... do you have any idea how many bot edits there are? One of the interwiki bots has done over 10 million edits. The top 174 en:WP bots have made some 39,873,340 according to emijrp's reports - about 10% of all edits. Rich Farmbrough, 03:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia relies on manual review either via (a) BRFA for a bot account, or (b) an editor eye-balling their assisted edits for a main account. The system works great until some overly enthusiastic editors either (a) skip BRFA, or (b) skip eye-balling on their main account... and that's how we end up with thing like Main Page being tagged isn't it? That your personal main account alone has made 2% of those 39 million edits probably illustrates the impact that ignoring either of the two criteria brings with it.

So once again, back to the straight question. Could I confirm that CBM has requested (above and beyond regular BRFA/BAG) that SmackBot not shuffle-references? (nb. if this is indeed the case, I am quite happy to approach CBM and suggest that it shouldn't be the case... but it requires a straight answer). —Sladen (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes he has. See below. Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

I would be totally supportive of any bot doing necessary tasks which are too shit tedious or boring to do manually. I would also like to have it on clear record which, if any, of Rich's edits are not considered 'necessary' by consensus. I don't think any lack of consensus has been proven, only WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot edits are not bold. The bot does not have authorization to rearrange references because doing so requires manual review. If someone intentionally put the references in a particular order, that order needs to be preserved - only by looking at the references themselves and evaluating them can you decide what order they belong in. If you don't read the references, or are a bot, there's no way to tell what order is best.

The AWB developers have set up a general method to allow bots like SmackBot to disable the reference reordering, so all that RF has to do is implement that properly. It's already a feature of AWB.

In the end, the bot task is just about adding dates to maintenance templates. So there is no reason in the task that the bot should be doing general fixes at all. However, if it is going to do some, it needs to stick to ones that do not require manual review, like changing "5th June" to "5 June". If the fixes are difficult to limit, they could just be disabled, and the bot's approved task would be unaffected.

Also, I'll point out that the error rate for the bot is quite high, higher than any other bot that frequently appears on my watchlist. Today it also resumed a type of breakage in which is adds un-substituted subst: tags to articles. This is another error that has been pointed out over and over, and apparently still isn't not fixed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Template capitialisation changes

Pure case-changing of templates[72][73][74][75][76]. Again. There's also adjustment of {{self-published inline}}[77]. —Sladen (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You forgot this?

:::Rich: I'd prefer to see you make this unblock request on the basis of contributing to the WP:ANI discussion, it is more immediate concern and would be easier to grant. Talk of "throwing hundreds more pages at SmackBot" may not endear everyone. —Sladen (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Let us then say "Throwing hundreds more pages into Category:Articles_with_invalid_date_parameter_in_template which is going to create problems for me, and is unlikely to be addressed by anyone else." Rich Farmbrough, 19:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Seriously I suggest you go and download WP:Huggle and run that for an hour, then see if you want to spend time arguing about this capital nonsense. Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Not quite sure of the relevance of this to the AWB-capitialisation changes. Perhaps you could respond to the subject at hand and fix the AWB in question (as was previously indicated) rather than ranting about something unrelated. Thank you for the confirmation and reminder of the assistance I afforded towards getting your account unblocked. Bare in mind that some editors people chose to make less edits, of a higher-quality, manually—and the same applies to fighting vandalism. —Sladen (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the point, Sladen, you don't see the relevance. You simply have no understanding of what's going on here. I will explain but I fear you will be, as the old joke goes, "none the wiser, merely better informed." The change of the dated category name in the {{Cleanup}} template resulted in hundreds of pages being thrown into non-existent categories. This is interpreted by the template, quite reasonably, as "invalid dates", and the pages are therefore put into a clean-up category, mainly containing things like "spetember 2010", "2010-10-09" and other assorted drek. Then SmackBot comes along and sorts them out. The number of articles with a valid date that is not a valid category is usually about 2 or 3 per day, if that. At the end of a SmackBot run there is an intensely manual phase which involves picking up this sort of thing, creating the categories, or reverting the vandalism, de-substing templates, fixing broken templates and so on and on. To avoid these hundreds of articles gettign dumped in the category was easy enough, but it involved A) getting past your objections to the unblock. B) putting up with your crap on my talk page again, because I didn't run grovelling to ANI. Which discussion, it transpired, was an almost complete waste of time. I'm sorry if I seem a little irritated, it's because I am. Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for the explanation of the general concept of the date-tagged cleanups (which I am supportive of). However, in the case of all of the example diffs provided there are no "invalid dates", there are no changes or adjustments to the dates made (except removing a single trailing space in one instance). The question is thus: why these matches are being activated when there is nothing to change? —Sladen (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The change of the dated category name in the {{Cleanup}} template resulted in hundreds of pages being thrown into non-existent categories. This is interpreted by the template, quite reasonably, as "invalid dates", and the pages are therefore put into a lean-up category, mainly containing things like "spetember 2010", "2010-10-09" and other assorted drek. Then SmackBot comes along and sorts them out. The ususal number of articles with a valid date that is not a valid category is usually about 2 or 3 per day, if that. Despite these being edited they remain in the category and hence after a run of say 1000 article there will be maybe 65 articles on a re-run, 5 that need manual fixing and 60 that have been added while the run was occurring. (The current backlog thanks to this farrago is over 11000 entries.) Of those 5, typically 2 or 3 will have been edited and 2 or 3 not. This isn't a problem. When several hundred or several thousand articles that shouldn't be there get thrown into the queue, it's still not a problem, except to the obsessives amongst us, but I prefer that not to happen. That it did to this extent is directly attributable to you. Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think there's any disagreement about the logic of why, how or when to do sweeps. So, skipping straight to the "SmackBot comes along and sorts them out" part: why are rules getting activated when there is already a valid date (no change required, effectively null edit)? If the honest answer is laziness, then that's fine—having taken my own time to report the issue, with diffed examples, I would like to know that it is usefully being reviewed. (I appreciate your enthusiasm to share the general concept behind the date cleanup and which I don't think anyone has any objection to, but that's not what I have attempted to highlight here with the diffs). —Sladen (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not due to the general date clean up. It's due to someone breaking a template, and me being unable to prevent that causeing damage. Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Okay, excellent; do you have a diff for the breakage? Which template? (I'm still slightly confused as to how this has any relation on an AWB regex-rule firing when it doesn't need to—what is being reported here). —Sladen (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please could you indicate when you have fixed the rule producing the edits highlighted above. —Sladen (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I cant speak for Rich of course but I believe what he has been trying to say is that those capitalization changes have been built into AWB over time (and only recently became an issue to a couple of editors) and in order to completely stop making those changes requires either not using the app at all (because to correct the app requires significant coding changes) or allow a few "minor" and arguably unwanted (some of us want them but others do not) edits process so that other "true problems" like vandalism can be fixed with the bot. In my opinion allowing a few edits like this through so that bigger problems can be dealt with in an automated fashion (allowing for a better product for the readers) is a small price to pay and rather the cost of doing business as they say. --Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot time is cheap. General editor time reviewing superfluous diffs, when they could instead be tackling vandalism, is not. —Sladen (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Again you don't understand. 1. stop reviewing the diffs. 2. Thanks to you SmackBot is running at such a low hit rate it will not be able to run daily soon. 3.Those diffs were not part of SB's normal run, they were part of an approved trial. 4. Bot time may be relatively cheap, but you are not paying for it, nor are you paying for me to make the changes you demand - which are not even wanted by you as far as I can tell. Why I should make my code more complex just because you have become a stuck record is a mystery to me. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

I appreciate that you personally don't use Watchlists, but other editors do use Watchlists, and this is how come they end up reviewing SmackBot's edits. Just like a potential vandal, if I see an AWOL bot I will review their other recent edits, and I assume that this is how most editors capable of using watchlists work... —Sladen (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot is not AWOL. And if there is a bug, as has happened, there is no point a human reviewing 5 or 10 or even 100 edits, I will generally review at least 25,000 edits if it's a tag-dating issue, depending on the nature of the problem, and fix them up where necessary. Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

If you are manually reviewing 25,000 edits (that is more than the number of edits I have ever made to Wikipedia)... why is the error rate so high? —Sladen (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"there is no point a human reviewing" where do you get "manually reviewing" from that?
"why is the error rate so high?" How high is the error rate? What constitutes an error? Something you don't like? Something bad? Something good but unexpected? An effectively dummy edit? Suppose the error rate it is .1% is that high? How does it compare with, say User:Sladen? With an average editor? With an average admin? With an average anonymous IP? With other bots?

Before calumnizing SmackBot, and by implication me, please try to establish some basic facts, so that you have a grasp of what's going on, rather than just guessing. Rich Farmbrough, 10:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

On the occasions where I have done large sample review of SmackBot's edits, the failure rate has been between 5% and 10%; and I have tried to state this in my reports (eg. "95/100"). It's not guess work, it's several years of watching SmackBot walk across my watchlist, cleaning up aftewards, and reporting the bugs here. —Sladen (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You may have done this twice but the only time I am sure of was when you said:

Could you explain the purposing of putting </noinclude><noinclude> back-to-back.[78][79], still I suppose that it's legal... I am however baffled by the recursive <noinclude><noinclude>[80] on another edit. An adjective distance 237 km should have been 237-kilometre ...[81].

Since these were all correct (in the sense that for three of them you preferred option was a potential bug and what happened was fine, and for the fourth, the improvement, while sup-optimal, was still an improvement) , your "34/38" rating is wrong, and the actual rating is 100%, not that 38 edits is a decent sample. Rich Farmbrough, 15:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

Copyright violation?

Hi Rich, would you please take a look at this article? Keith Jolie seems to be copy-pasted, and after the first edit that created it, the next user (with an IP address), seems to have "edited" little else. The biography page of the guy's website is here: [82] It was, after all, the only "reference" on the page. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to look in more detail soon, but for now [this diff] seems to suggest that the discography, at least, was developed on WP. The IP, could, of course be Keith Jolie. Rich Farmbrough, 03:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks- I didn't look into it too closely... was going through the lists of musician articles needing infoboxes, and adding them to articles with photos and enough text. I just happened upon that article, but I've learned to be really weary of articles that have plenty of text, little wikification, and only one reference, if that. Either way, I just wanted someone to check it. Thanks again. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Replacing template with template redirect, again

Previous discussion: User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2010Oct#Replacing template with template redirect

You seem to have a desire to always 'canonicalise' templates, so why, are you actually replacing a template with a tenmplate redirect as here?

If you think {{flagicon}} should be renamed to {{Flag icon}}, please file a requested move discussion. –xeno^talk 14:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That edit also did something strange to the external links. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it made them visible. One is on the spam list, normally I would pick it out and preserve the rest, but strangely I find my energy sapped. Rich Farmbrough, 15:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

If your energy is sapped, perhaps you should stop making disputed edits - you'd save a lot of time answering questions about them? –xeno^talk 15:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Even more peculiar, given your recent edit to WP:Redirect [83] (one that supports your position during an ongoing dispute, might I add) that suggests that "eliminating the redirect from a page is almost always beneficial" - but here you go in the opposite direction? (See also: WT:Redirect#Template redirects and WP:NOTBROKEN) –xeno^talk 15:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Almost always, see pay me now or pay me later. Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
  - Please go through WP:RM, don't try to "trickle move" the template by switching templates to template redirects. –xeno^talk 20:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    - That would take more years than I am prepared to give it. Rich Farmbrough, 15:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC).
      - Not a very good justification for just going ahead with it. You use automated and semi-automated means to inflict your own personal preferences on the rest of Wikipedia, without discussing first, and without discussing properly afterwards when concerns are brought up - not acceptable. The very reason we have things like BRfA in place (and other means to reviewing these kinds of tasks) is because it is very difficult for a "normal" editor to actually do anything when a user starts making ~10 edits a minute which they disagree with. Especially when that editor then won't properly discuss the issue with them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
        Read what I said not what you impute to me. Rich Farmbrough, 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC).
        
        You said (as I see it) that you can't be bothered to go through discussion via WP:RM because that would take too long, and that you feel a okay alternative to this discussing is to simply "game the system" (or "trickle move" as xeno put it) by using a semi-automated/automated tool to change the articles to use the template you prefer prior to moving (or without moving). If this is incorrect you need to explain yourself a bit more than simply "That would take more years than I am prepared to give it" - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
        No I said that I would not be prepared to move a template by "trickle move", as that would take more years than I would be prepared to give it. The reference to exponential decay should make that clear. A minimal figure for "trickle moving" that template would be 25 years, ~~assuming no new usages~~ and uniformity of edits. Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC).
        
        Thanks for clarifying, your comments above aren't very clear, but nonetheless, my apologies for misunderstanding. Well in that case, what reason could you possibly have for changing that template? Just a personal preference if I'm correct? Which it is still an inappropriate use of automated/semi-automated editing (I presume you are using a tool of some sort for these edits, correct??). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
        That edit was made with Firefox. Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
        
        Perhaps you could answer the whole question instead of just the bracketed aside? –xeno^talk 15:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
        I was doing that but I found people would then pick one answer and argue about that so 8/8 of my effort was wasted.
        
        Flagicon is not a word, "Flag icon" makes some kind of sense. The majority of article space templates eschew munged phrases. Simple clear naming rules help everyone. Rich Farmbrough, 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
        
        Please file WP:RM if you feel this is the case. –xeno^talk 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually started doing that 3 days ago. However all my time has been taken up here. Rich Farmbrough, 15:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

It takes all of 30 seconds to file a discussion. I'm really confused - by removing a few exceedingly trivial and inconsequential rules from your ruleset, you could avoid all the headache. –xeno^talk 16:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 5

Template: Approved.. *

Edits by:

MBisanz at 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 5

Template: Approved.. *

Edits by:

MBisanz at 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37

Template: Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

H3llkn0wz at 14:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 15:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38

Template: Approved for trial (5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

H3llkn0wz at 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 12:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 36

Template: Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37

Template: Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 3

Template: Speedily Approved.. *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 03:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
Xeno at 14:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 17:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 17:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 18:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 22:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 17:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by H3llkn0wz at 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 18:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 19:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal historian

Not sure that this edit actually helps, does it? PamD (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 6

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Date fixing

User:SmackBot main backlog
(refresh)
Total	46109

Is SmackBot still patrolling Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template? It currently has 550 page in it. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 18:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, it is patrolling it, SmackBot has a back log right now awaiting BRFA. The size of the backlog is in the box to the right. Currently the lack of BRFA means 600,000 wasted page-views a month, next month that would be 1.2 million (a ten thousandth of all WP's page-views) and I would have to stop fixing the 40 or 50 articles a day I can now. However I'm sure that won't happen. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

(Probably double those numbers.) Rich Farmbrough, 20:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Got a trail run , so half are are fixed. From the peak of 660. Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases

Hi! Upon the request of another editor, I listed Category:Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases and its subcategories for speedy renaming (for a minor punctuation fix). I have a feeling that one of your bots (SmackBot, maybe?) may be checking this category occasionally or regularly to add a date parameter, and so I wanted to give you a "heads up" so that you would not be caught by surprise if a change is made. If I was wrong, then sorry for the bother. Cheers! : ) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does, but the renaming won't bother it. I'll look, though, because the sub-cats need renaming too. Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

I listed the subcats too, as well as Category:Monthly clean up category (Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases) counter. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Once the templates are sorted, which I have done, the rest happens by itself, pretty much. Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Thank you! I see that the new categories were created by Femto Bot and have started populating.

By the way ... Wavelength, the editor who noticed the hyphenation issue, also has pointed out about 80 counter categories which use "clean up" (verb phrase) instead of "cleanup" (noun adjunct); see here for details. I know that the categories are populated via {{Monthly clean up category}} (and its ~100 subpages), so could it (or they) be edited to make that change?

For example, Category:Monthly clean up category (Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases) counter → Category:Monthly cleanup category (Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases) counter

I know that it would be simple enough to move the template and its subpages (by checking the "Move subpages" box), but I do not know whether that would: (a) be sufficient to rename the categories, and (b) break something else. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean up is better, "cleaning up" would be better still. Or "needing a clean-up". However these categories are only looked at by templates (they enable the counts of items in a category to be adjusted by the number of sub-categories), not even by bots, so I really wouldn't worry about the names: they could by XYZZY001 - in fact, such a name would be better in some ways -- this all stems from supermarkets "clean-up on aisle 2". Rich Farmbrough, 12:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Alright, then. Thanks for your help with renaming the "ly" categories. : ) Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiBack

But not really editing juts trying to clear the decks a bit. Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

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

Perseus, Son of Zeus

Hi! For your information, I AM Perseus, Son of Zeus's IP address, if you look at the top of the talk page. Could you make my account's user page back to normal? Thanks! 173.49.140.141 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI note

A discussion concerning your edits has been started at WP:ANI#Admin tools misuse by Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Too kind of you. Rich Farmbrough, 00:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Please reply as you have been, not as you did;

I've reverted this edit. Feel free to restore your comment, but do it outside mine. Yes, I am angry that you went out side the norm you have shown, and completely break up my comment, ruining any structure it had. I would expect more of someone who holds the mop. I didn't bother restoring your comment in a regular form because it destroyed mine so much a revert was the only next possible step.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

What does Smackbot do?

I'm curious to what this bot does. Please tell me! [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 14:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

New Messages

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

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fempto Bot weidness

Hi: at Category:Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases Fempto bot has made a bit of a mess with this category creation, so you may wish to check out what happened. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ty Ty. See two thread above for the explanation if it's of interest. Rich Farmbrough, 14:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Edit warring

Hi, I noted a possible edit warring by you here. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Restop when stopped already...

And yet again, the bot is decapitalising Prime Minister, this time at Feleti Sevele‎. This is at least the fourth time I've pointed this out.-gadfium 05:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 6

Template: . *

Edits by:

Kingpin13 at 12:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Kingpin13 at 12:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kingpin13 at 12:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kingpin13 at 12:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dated templates please

When you have a moment please extract SmackBot's list of dated templates and add them to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated_templates#Mainspace_rules, or post them to a sandbox and I'll reformat. Thanks Rjwilmsi 11:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Rich Farmbrough, 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot

Please pardon the newbie question. SmackBot put a comment up on the Swimming-induced pulmonary edema page that I needed to wikify (new article). I put a number of internal links in and I think it's compliant. Can I take the comment down, or will there be another bot sweep to do that, or is there some other process? I am new to the etiquitte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipe21 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes fine to remove a tag if it's no longer needed. Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Terrific, thanks Sipe21 (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

Features and admins: The best of the week

ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Smacking the bot's botty

Take a look at the result of this: distinctly uglier than it had been before! -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes thanks, known bug. Caused by a MediaWiki bug. Corrected normally by SmackBot on the fly but since SmackBot is under interdiction for changing {{silicate-mineral-stub}} to {{Silicate-mineral-stub}} needs me to clean up after manually. Rich Farmbrough, 11:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Please update to the latest SVN

Please update SmackBot to the latest SVN of AWB which no longers makes unnecessary capitalization changes. Thanks, –xeno^talk 02:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

#SmackBot & Gurnee mills for why this can't happen yet. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Bot needs updating

Hi there Rich Farmbrough, just thought you should know that Femto Bot (talk · contribs) may need a tweak. It recently created Category:Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases, but the category and its subcategories were recently renamed to omit the hyphen between specifically and marked, see Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases. — ξ ^xplicit 07:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I kinda did the renaming. What happens is someone repopulates the old subcategory by some means, Femot Bot re-creates it, the article gets moved back to the right cat, then the category se4lf noms itself for deletion. Not ideal, but it works, sorta. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Ignore that explanation, it's just never seen someone delete a parent cat before and decided it must be wrong. I raise a low priority bug with myself. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

I already have a feature request in with myself that will cover it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Okey doke, thanks for looking into it.

— ξ ^xplicit 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37

Template: Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 17:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 36

Template: Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Kingpin13 at 12:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kingpin13 at 12:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kingpin13 at 12:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Burma

Only thing I spotted from the run the other day was that you left in the leader title -mayor so it now comes up with a { } error. Can you ensure they are removed like this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, can be resolved soon I hope. Rich Farmbrough, 09:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

OK don't forget!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The error is fixed: the status quo will at least inform that the leader is a mayor, and encourage naming of names. Rich Farmbrough, 17:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Crow&diff=140825854&oldid=135073655

I am looking for the name of the photographer. I think the URL above is an edit where you inserted the current American Crow image.

Steve Zaslaw [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.159.226 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Close: it is User:Mdf that is making that change. Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Ok had 10 days to read this...

Talkback: Template talk:Citation needed

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Template talk:Citation needed.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Spike Toronto 07:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: ANI

What I meant was that it wasn't enough for you to stop making disruptive edits. You were just recently brought to AN/I and we would have thought that that AN/I case was sufficient to stop you from making further controversial edits without consultation with the community. I believe that you do have good and sincere intentions behind most of your edits, but you needing multiple warning within a short period is overstretching the limit. Bejinhan talks 02:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. Like I said, I do believe that you have good intentions, but you not wanting to answer calls for explanation leaves a lot to be desired. That being said, regarding Roux's bloc history, two wrongs do not make a right. Bejinhan talks 03:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

RF again?! Sheesh, as if being sent to ANI barely three weeks ago wasn't enough, your response Uh well I haven't really edited since then.. So after that last time, you didn't really edit and on your return there is this.--Crossmr (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 12:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kingpin13 at 10:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 6

Template: Speedily Approved.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Kingpin13 at 12:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 16:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kingpin13 at 10:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dated maintenance categories

Hi! Since you deal with templates and categories alot I figured you would be a good person to ask. Would it be possible to take an undated maintenance category (specifically Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections populated by {{Copypaste}}) and alter it so that it uses monthly subcats and takes a date parameter (and is preferably looked after by SmackBot like most/all? other dated maintenance templates)? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes pretty easy. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Tis done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks a bunch! VernoWhitney (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Woot

SmakcBot backlog down to 9999! Off out imminently. Waves to Cambridge mob. <Fx; door slams. Grams: Up and over, Cage's 4:31> Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

US places

Hi Rich. Many of the US place articles are in a mess. In particular many contain ugly lists of schools. Maybe you could run a bot to convert education section where a * is located to replace it with a , and convert to prose. The biggest issue with most of the articles is the poor formatting and short ugly sections with long lists and little prose. Also the Rambot data is now ten years out of date. I'd have thought there would be another census this year. Rambot should update with new data. If not then somebody else whould run a bot to update it. We talked about India and Pakistan settlements on wikipedia generally being a pigsty, seriously most of the American place articles are as bad and are in desperate need of a serious cleanup. Basically its areas which are open to a high number of IPs and traffic and things are added sporadically without knowing how to reference/write encyclopedia articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Something like this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I oppose the bulleted list. The 2010 census data will doubtless take some time to emerge -0 I haven;t checked the site for a while. Rich Farmbrough, 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Edits to Theorem

This edit [84]:

Did not date any maintenance tags
Capitalized templates, although I thought SmackBot had stopped doing that
Added a DMY tag, although there is no reason I see that this article has any national ties

An edit that claims to date maintenance tags, but does not, must not be saved. The maintenance tag dating task is all about dating tags, not about doing other things. There is no reason that the bot should even be looking at this article for the task of dating maintenance tags. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

- Due to SmackBot being partially broken as noted.
- No it doesn't.
- Bug, provisionally fixed.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Edit to Formal language

This edit [85] has the edit summary "General fixes: using AWB (special CBM restricted version)". AWB should not be used to make only general fixes; that is a violation of the AWB terms of use. However, the actual edit appears to be dating maintenance tags, which is a bot task for SmackBot. Bot tasks should not be run under the maintainer's main account, only under the bot account. That's the purpose of bot accounts to begin with. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah so that means once I have an approval for a bot to do something it is verboten to me? Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

That's the point of getting bot approval, yes. It's not appropriate for bot operators to run bot tasks on their main accounts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. So SineBot's operator is forbidden from signing his posts? Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

He/she would certainly not be permitted to run SineBot under his/her own account with a different edit summary. However, I have never seen that issue with SineBot, while I have seen you run SmackBot tasks under your main account before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So exactly what is it that you object to here? I will offer you a choice:

That is it the same ruleset.
That I am doing things that SmackBot is approved to do.
That I am using AWB to do them.
Something else.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

I object to bot operators running their bot tasks on their main account. That certainly includes running AWB under your main account "using the same ruleset" as SmackBot, just as it would include me having one of my bots log in as CBM instead of itself. This includes both the "date tags" and "add refs section" tasks, of course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you object? Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

In principle, the point of bot accounts is to separate the bot edits from the main owner's edits. In policy, the bot policy requires that bots run under a separate account. You're already skirting with editing restrictions because of violations of the bot policy; running bots on your main account can't help your cause. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"AWB should not be used to make only general fixes". That's not quite correct as you confuse "general fixes" with "trivial edits". The simplest form of SmackBot's useful tag dating could be done purely with AWB general fixes. Rjwilmsi 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate to run AWB on numerous articles making only general fixes - they need to be secondary to some other purpose (and would need to be run under a bot account, of course). If someone happened to run just general fixes on an article that person had been actively editing, that would be fine. If I noticed an AWB user running just general fixes over a large number of articles, I would point out the AWB rules to them. In this case, R.F. knows the AWB rules, which include "don't do anything controversial with it". And R.F. has a history of running SmackBot tasks (such as reference sections) on his main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Carl, Rjwilmsi is absolutely correct. For nearly a month SmackBot has been running its dating task solely on GFs. Thanks to various **** it cannot upgrade, and I have to check all it's runs with a pre-parse scan and fix them up manually: basically a combination of the restrictions placed on it. And yet, just when you think things can't get more Kafkaesque (spending hundreds of hours - a whole month, pretty much replying to peoples generally ill-informed assertions, removing every bell and whistle simply because someone objects to the fog-horn) I am still being "taken" to AN - over a couple of purely manual edit. well I say that but the ground shifts. One second it's wheel warring, the next incivility, lack of communication and as you answer one, the old accusations get recycled, threads split and spatter across multiple pages. Peopel who have never seen my name before !vote to restrict my editing rights. In this case, specifically Carl:

I am allowed to use AWB manually with any ruleset, subject to the normal editing rules, and AWB's own rules of use which are slightly more strict.
I am allowed to (for example) manually date a tag, add a references section, correct an ISBN.
General fixes is not only allowed to WB editors there is a function to supreme minor edits only fixes.

The question of whether people want to be a wp:DICK about the actual rules is another matter. Generally they don't - but certainly knowing what the rules are helps.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Stop - ref section breakage

In addition to this edit [86] which should not be saved I have posted several serious errors to the operator's talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bare tags again

The bot needs to be stopped until the problem is fixed [87] [88] [89]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB fixed that. rev 7314 FixSyntax: implement workaround for bugzilla mediawiki bug 2700 (subst within ref tags doesn't work). -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the diff in sourceforge, and it looks like AWB is just replacing the subst itself. Is that done just before the page is saved, or only if CURRENTMONTHNAME is already in the text when AWB starts to edit it? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

All dates to the templates will be added with no problems even inside references. The saved result will be the wanted one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great news - should fix this issue once and for all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Read up. Rich Farmbrough, 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

#SmackBot & Gurnee mills for example. Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Talkback

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

STOP

SmackBot stopped to allow you time to comply to Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DNB redirects

You are creating a series of redirects like Allen, William (1793-1864) (DNB00) which are not only highly improbable, but worse, redirect from the mainspace to your userspace, which is not allowed. Please stop creating those, and DB-G6 the ones already created. Fram (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Alexander, John (d.1743) (DNB00)

A tag has been placed on Alexander, John (d.1743) (DNB00), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

STOP

The bot is still decapitalising Prime Minister. I've pointed this out before. Please fix your bot.-gadfium 05:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 05:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. Changed. Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Capitalisation of section titles

See problem report at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Capitalisation of section titles --Kvng (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a form of typo fixing which generally is not permitted for automated bots. Is it an approved task? –xeno^talk 13:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I found the approval here; though I'm confused as to why the bot was approved to make unattended spell-checking. –xeno^talk 14:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Probably erroneous approval for a form of spell-checking (SmackBot). –xeno^talk 14:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

Yes it's approved.
Not really spelling checking, unless you want to stretch the term.
Very low error rate
Errors easily fixed. (WSOP virtually done - despite distractions.)
Disputed changes easily removed (see PM and GS above).
Something nice and uncontroversial ... oh... forgot this is Wikipedia.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

I'm not sure what logic you're using., but it's probably best to set out a list of headers the bot can change, rather than the opposite. –xeno^talk 18:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

here. Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Was also published previously under WP:AWB/Settings (with the WSOP error). Rich Farmbrough, 18:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Ah, so just human error - thanks. –xeno^talk 18:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

YW as ever. Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Find a Grave

Although its none of mu business I noticed the conversation on Xeno's talk page and thought you might be interested to know that I have fixed all the Find a Grave redirects to say Find a Grave and I am going through now and removing the unneeded parameters for |id=, |grid= and |name= as well as adding {para|accessdate}} currentdate if the Find a Grave entry is used as a reference and pulling about 10 different variations of Retrieved on X date inside the template to to |. I also did this with the Hall of Valor template. I am going to IMDb next followed by several others. --Kumioko (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention I am also going to replace the http=find a grave to use the template. --Kumioko (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I guess if the "discussion" continues long enough all the "disputed" changes will be done anyway by the time SB running properly. <wry grin> Rich Farmbrough, 14:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Frankly it matters not a jot whether the link is a template or a simple url. If the site is not reliable (which the template itself clearly admits), the community shouldn't have any hesitation in deciding whether they stay or go globally. IMHO, the link, if not a direct citation, should be removed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, well not exactly, in general something may be an RS in some circumstances and not in others. Also "External links" don't have to be RS. Rich Farmbrough, 06:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Re: Hawaii watchlist[edit]

Tanks for updating the watchlist. Any idea what FemtoBot is doing? It just deleted the update. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Robot rebellion I think. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

Robin Black[edit]

- Not sure why Robin Black's engagement was deleted. I put it up after confirming with him in person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.217.22 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, ask User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who changed it? I would say because we don't usually consider personal experience a WP:reliable source. Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Okie dokie. No harm no foul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.217.22 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

possible bug[edit]

First, thanks for all of the good work SmackBot does. I think I have encountered a bug, though, related to Template:Dead link. See this edit. It looks like the bot is having trouble substituting the date. Cheers! Novaseminary (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind words. Yes you are quite right. This is a known bug due to a change (reduction) in what SmackBot does and I am waiting for a BRFA to be approved which will allow me to fix this. Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Mixed martial arts[edit]

Can you please alter the SmackBot. It seems to be going through my articles and destroying my work. It's MMA, not Mma. Please stop your bot because I don't want to manually revert each and every one of your bots edits to MMA pages. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have prevented this type of edit, and of course "MMA" (which is not changed) is the correct abbreviation. I can't see any reason that mixed martial arts (in words) should have special capitals though, perhaps you can advise? Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Well spell it out then. Mixed Martial Arts. I feel like I have to battle with the bot every couple of months; it does get frustrating.

I'm puzzled still: SmackBot does not touch "MMA", unless you have an example. Please be clear if that's what you mean.

If you mean the full words, they are not proper nouns, they are not capitialised in the article on MMA. We do not capitalise words in titles and headers that would not be capitalised in running text, apart form the first word.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings "All of the guidance in Article titles immediately above applies to section headings as well. "

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 01:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

As the full name of the sport, I believe it to be a proper noun, e.g. Mixed Martial Arts, not Mixed martial arts. Paralympiakos (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll copy this to Wikipedia talk:MOS for a wider discussion, and to establish consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 07:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot query[edit]

Rich, can I borrow you for a question at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Cleancat, 2nd nomination, please? --Bsherr (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

DNB bot[edit]

Please be more careful and slow in testing your DNB bot edits. As far as I can tell, this is a so far unauthorized bot you are running, which has e.g. created so far 31 redirects from mainspace to user space which have had to be deleted, and placed 26 articles in user space in (incorrect) mainspace categories. If your bot wuold create less articles, and care would be taken that those few are correct, before proceeding with more tests, then less errors would be introduced and less cleanup would be needed. Fram (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AS far as the first goes there must be an error in my perl: Anyone who can explain why

if (1==0){


do this

} executes will get a special barnstar.

As far as the second - I wouldn't worry about temporary additions to those categories, nobody who browses them is going to be thrown by a user page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

I have just reverted (rollbacked per rolback of incorret bot edits policy) again some 25 edits of yours, which were utterly pointless, incorrect, and contrary to policy. Is there any reason why you can't test your bot with 2 or 3 articles at a time, and check those edits yourself, and revert them when incorrect? Fram (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, did you read my reply? Rich Farmbrough, 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Yes. Did you read bot policy, category policy, the last ANI discussion about your bot edits, or even simply my question, formulated twice now? Fram (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich, is it so hard just to move this onto a separate account, and comment out the categories while testing? I note that testing in your userspace is acceptable, but it's disruptive to use your own account for this, and in addition it's disruptive to add those categories to user-space pages. It's not hard to fix, and will just make users happier with your edits. As to your code problem, this is exactly why we have processes like BRfA.. However, I assume you're not actually using two constant varibles with values 0 and 1. If you are you might as well just use if ('false') if you're using strings or something, you should use if ($string1 eq $string2) although I don't know if this'll fix your problem, as I don't really know perl. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kingpin, the cats are now commented out (keep up! keep up!), and as I said they are not the sort of category that actually cause a problem. No really. Which makes me wonder about motivation.

I am using the literal code 0==1 which I replaced "false" with under the notion that maybe that was being treated as a bareword. 0==1 is of course shorter. I have simply commented out the actual write anyway rather than fiddle with the if code.

Moving to a separate account. Sure thing no problem. Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Ahaha, okay if they're being commented out, the bot runs on a separate account, and only edits in your userspace, that's fine with me. Similar to the whitespace changing, in most cases this isn't really a massive problem, but it's irritating at best (in the case of whitespace, diff noise) and it's not like it's needed. In this case it's going to mess up Category counts (e.g. to assess how many living people pages are in other categories (e.g. unreferenced)), or if someone wants a random sample of living people on Wikipedia (e.g. to edit those pages ;D) then they won't want a bunch of your userspace tests showing up. Very odd that that code was running, perl doesn't think that 0 is 1 for me. Anyway, sounds as if everything is sorted out, so great. Actually, while I'm here just a quick note that you seemed to make an error at Kenneth Atchity which I reverted. Also, you seem to be changing the whitespace in the headers in some of your edits to that page, not a problem for me in this case, since you were changing the header name at the same time, but again, it's easy for you to not do that - so don't. It only serves as a provocation for others (whatever their motivations). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Motivation? You are adding categories which are totally unrelated to the articles you are importing. This time, they may not be the most obvious ones. What will it be next time? There is not a single reason for you to be adding these, just like there is no reason to test and develop this bot with dozens of articles at a time, when the errors are obvious after one or two of them. What is your motivation in ignoring policies and just doing whatever you like, even when the same things can be achieved with a lot less trouble and disruption? Note also that this wasn't just testing in his own userspace, but also included creating main space redirects and templates. Fram (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes thank you Fram. Rich Farmbrough, 20:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Smackbot added stub tag to dab page[edit]

Something went wrong here - the bot recognised the Disambiguation tag, but went on to call the page a stub. Wrong. PamD (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Rich, please download latest source code. It fixes the problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I have it, compiling now. And thanks Pam as ever. Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

And if it's adding {{stub}}, could it please use lower case "s"? It saves a couple of key-strokes when updating it to {{foo-stub}}, and for those of us who sort a lot of stubs, is a minor avoidable irritation! It may be "correct" for the tag to appear as {{Stub}}, but thanks to stub-sorters such tags don't hang around for long before being sorted! PamD (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed this when it was my custom rules for that very reason, Ill drop a note to the AWB team (it's been in my mind to do that), and change my own copy. Incidentally I could make s a little js so that as soon as you opened a page any {Stub} became {stub}. Rich Farmbrough, 09:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Feature request in. Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

SmackBot is destroying my ability to manage my watchlist by clogging the database with trivial substitutions of the unsigned template. The argument for substituting that template is weak in any case. Forcing database edits merely for the purpose of that one substitution is counterproductive. Please pull that out of the list of SmackBot triggers. Rossami (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ACandidates_and_elections&action=historysubmit&diff=390376929&oldid=94182987
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability_%28organizations_and_companies%29%2FArchive1&action=historysubmit&diff=390362783&oldid=158317183
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADeletion_process&action=historysubmit&diff=390351288&oldid=388602797
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AStrategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation&action=historysubmit&diff=390337826&oldid=371958946
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AG%27day&action=historysubmit&diff=390331736&oldid=295056933
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AU.S._Navy_slang&action=historysubmit&diff=390310669&oldid=160780098

Yes I can see the problem. It was a bit of a catchup, and should not happen again. Incidentally you can tell your watchlist to ignore bot edits if you choose. Rich Farmbrough, 11:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

What is the rationale for substituting this template, and please could you link to the relevant BRFA? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's supposed to be substed. The BRFA will take some finding as I am rebuilding the task list on SBs page. Rich Farmbrough, 00:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

There is no consensus for "ucfirst" as a standard for template calls[edit]

I will request both you and your bot to be blocked if you continue making these changes without first gaining consensus for them. You are a valuable contributor, but you cannot simply "plow on ahead" with controversial changes without first gathering consensus after good faith objections are raised. –xeno^talk 03:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no controversy here. Nothing to see, keep walking. Rich Farmbrough, 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Of course if BRFA SB 35 was signed off I could at least upgrade my AWB per the previous section. Rich Farmbrough, 05:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

You and I must work from different definitions of controversy. –xeno^talk 14:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, yes I was wrong there is plenty of controversy. There are no controversial changes here, I should have said. ~~

People have objected to you changing the case and asked you to gain consensus for your belief that lcfirst is incorrect/ something to be fixed. The onus lies upon you to do so, not to put your head down and continue unabated. –xeno^talk 15:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Who? Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Me, for one. Do you think I keep asking you to stop because I like giving you a hard time? I don't. –xeno^talk 15:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I declare your ucfirst-edits controversial. By the way, RF, above you wrote my AWB. Is that a private bot? Is it approved? Is there a botoperator, accountable & listening? Tell us more. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi DePiep I notice you still have a personal attack on me on your talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

No you clearly stated your postion. You were asking me to stop because many other people had asked me to stop and I had ignored them or brushed them off. Which is fine. We have subsequently established that both those premises are flawed. Therefore I would expect you stop asking me to stop. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

I am fairly sure you said you didn't care about the capitalisation yourself. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines. –xeno^talk 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And, asking about your "my AWB" is a personal attack? -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

". Is that a private bot? Is it approved? Is there a botoperator, accountable & listening?" that bit is. Get real. Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

RF, you referred to "my AWB". Does this refer to an unapproved bot you use or used? -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Now please stop or I will ask another admin to take a look at your actions. Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Send in "another" admin for me asking what do you mean by my AWB? I'd say: what do you mean by my AWB? -DePiep (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I just don't believe this sniping from the sidelines is still going on. You guys seriously need to get a life for insisting any capitalisation changes of templates are controversial. Yes, it's true that a small number of users can create a humongous fuss over any issue, but you guys have been going on too strongly about it for some time now, and really ought to re-evaluate your position in the cold light of day. You're piling on issue after issue after issue as if your stance on any one of your previous issues justifies your stance on this one, or that Rich is wrong in this case. The problem here is not Rich, but you. If you took this issue to the community, few would care one way or the other whether a template ought to be capitalised, or whether it should contain a space or not. You guys would just be looking for humiliation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

While some editors have expressed a personal preference for one style or the other, that isn't the main issue.

Indeed, on an objective level, whether the first letter is uppercase or lowercase makes virtually no difference. That's exactly why the bot's mass changes from one to the other are problematic; they flood watchlists, forcing users monitoring diffs to wade though these pointless edits in order to find the substantial ones.

It would be equally bad for the bot to change the first letter from uppercase to lowercase. The point is not that one style is inherently better; it's that the change itself (irrespective of the direction) is disruptive. —David Levy 02:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that ideally these edits should take place whilst carrying out substantive edits, but I am at a loss and I really don't know what to suggest. People seem to be coming from left and right, above and below to complain that even I feel besieged on behalf of Rich, and I'm only a talk page stalker!;-) It's only natural that bots take care of the small edits which no-one cares about, and people don't care until things start going pear-shaped – not unlike when the rubbish piles up on roadsides when the sanitation team are working to rule. Due to the problems being complained about, SmackBot is a shadow of its former self as Rich has been forced to remove a bunch of code from it. This would inevitably cause the circle to spiral as an overall larger number of trivial or inconsequential edits will be necessary. Nevertheless, I hope you see the point I'm trying to make: the header of this thread is 'There is no consensus for "ucfirst" as a standard for template calls', and all I'm saying is that I think few would give a FF (ie non-controversial by definition), yet I'm seeing people argue here that it is so. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

These edits should not occur at all. If substantive changes are made within the same revision, that negates the issue of added server strain when the page is saved, but it worsens the problem noted above. (Because the bot combines purposeful edits with pointless edits, users wishing to monitor the former are inundated with the latter.)

Honestly, I don't particularly care whether the first letter is uppercase or lowercase. I just want the bot to stop changing it for no good reason. That is what's controversial, and Rich only adds fuel to the fire with his dismissive replies (e.g. the above "Nothing to see, keep walking" remark). —David Levy 06:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Levy has it. I would also object if someone made the change in the other direction. It is the change that is disruptive, it is the changing that needs to stop, and if his talk page is "besieged", it is because he continues with the changes. Rich, if you need help writing a regex to avoid changing the first letter case, feel free to post at WT:AWB. –xeno^talk 13:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well this all started off with a "botwars" posting somewhere. I have never heard back form the other party, and presumably it has either stopped or kicked into reverse. But I have a little suspicion in me that says no-one checked? Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

As far "no good reason" is concerned allowing that to pass and sticking to the "stop changing it" bit - be aware that massive changes to the rule-base have eliminated - well pretty much everything - Xeno says (or said) that the bot's changes since 18 October are fine. It is a shame that David has not found any relief in these changes, but there is nothing left to be cut. Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

I just examined some recent diffs and found that the bot indeed ignored all-lowercase template calls. If this is consistent and permanent, it addresses my main concern regarding your bot. —David Levy 18:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Now if only the man behind the curtain can stop unnecessarily capitalizing templates, we can go back to sipping mai tais and playing beach volleyball. –xeno^talk 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The current little difficulty seems to be over a silly little number of manual or semi manual edits, that are neither watchlist chaff nor diff bloating. 23 edits capitalising "Jewish", and edit to Hans Apserger and Ron Weasley that I should probably not have saved, for example. All very reprehensible, but hardly ANI stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Why bother changing {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}}? The fact that you are continually having to make these changes to support your preference kindof supports the position that the de facto consensus is lcfirst. In any case, changing in either direction is unnecessary. –xeno^talk 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as diff bloat goes I had suggested to xeno that this was something we could usefully discuss. I suppose that suggestion got drowned in the sea of words. Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

I'll try to keep it short and sweet. Rich: (for the umpteenth time) please stop changing template capitalisation. It does not affect the rendering of the page and serves no useful purpose. —Sladen (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Xeno has pointed out that the edit I noticed was made in period between the restrictions coming into place and SmackBot being subsequently stopped. —Sladen (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Template names with the same misspelling[edit]

At 17:35, 13 August 2009, Template:Monthly cleanup category was moved to Template:Monthly clean up category, with the explanation "cleanup is a noun". However, "cleanup" should still be a compound word when it is used as a noun adjunct (a noun used as an attributive adjective next to an immediately following noun).

http://mw3.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cleanup
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp
http://www.wilbers.com/part24.htm
http://www.epa.gov/productreview/stylebook/writing.html

Could you please move Template:Monthly clean up category to Template:Monthly cleanup category, and move all the subpages to corresponding subpages? There is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Template names with the same misspelling (permanent link here). (Your talk page is on my watchlist, and I will watch for your reply here.)
—Wavelength (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My OED denies there is any such word. Are you sure its not some twentieth century American invention, possibly derived form the mining industry as reported by Mark Twain in Roughing It ? Rich Farmbrough, 03:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

I am not sure that it is not a twentieth-century American invention, but, even if it is, it shares that characteristic with "Internet" and "Wikipedia" and many words in the field of computing as well as other fields. If you are able to use English while avoiding every word that is a twentieth-century American invention, you deserve a prize for your agility in constrained writing. Anyway, I found the hyphenated form "clean-up" at http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0153900#m_en_gb0153900. I would be satisfied with the hyphenated form, although, according to http://www.onelook.com/?w=cleanup&ls=a and http://www.onelook.com/?w=clean-up&ls=a, the solid compound word "cleanup" appears to be more common than the hyphenated compound word "clean-up".

—Wavelength (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah well: I have moved it to the hyphenated version, though no doubt someone will be along to chastise me for not using RM in a moment. <Chuckle> HTH. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Thank you. (Unfortunately, I neglected to mention that some of the subpages have the solid compound form "cleanup" in their names. I hope that that does not cause problems.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Luckily up to 100 subpages move automatically for (admins at least) and there were only 98. SO there should be no issues. Also I built the template using relative names for subpages, so there should be no problems there. Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant when I said that they have the solid compound form "cleanup" in their names. I meant that they have it in the part following the virgule ("/"). (If there is a technical word for that part, I do not know it.) One example is Template:Monthly clean up category/Messages/Wikipedia introduction cleanup (which has been moved to Template:Monthly clean-up category/Messages/Wikipedia introduction cleanup).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a technical term, but I have forgot it quite. The pleasure of having someone say "virgule" on my talk page more than makes up for this momentary amnesia though. As i say, although they are made of human words, these names are really just strings. If Cat:Wikipedia intro cleanup moves to "Articles needing introduction clean-up" (I would be moderately pleased - I actually prefer best a more positive "to be" construciton, although it might be clumsy here "Articles to be cleaned up" - implies we are going to do it, not just we are aware it's broken , and creates positive vibes^{20th C US?} helping things get done) then that sub-template would need to move too. Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

PLEASE STOP, SMACKBOT! Do not de-capitalize these things![edit]

I must admit, I kind of saw this coming but was too lazy to preempt it. Okay, here's the deal: please reverse the de-capitalization of section titles (like Band Members, Additional Personnel, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum). These are NOT the same things as page titles and thus there are different rules when it comes to de-capitalization. If there were a page called "Band member", it is proper to de-capitalized the second word because it's a general encyclopedia entry (ideally, I think, both words should be de-capitalized - maybe you could build a SmackBot for this purpose?) But think of section titles as chapter titles. Chapter titles follow the same rules as, say, novels or albums (that is, capitalize all major words, de-capitalize connectors such as "of", "a", "the" [in almost all cases] etc.)

I do have a request. Could you get your SmackBot to change "Track listing" on album pages to "Tracklist"? - This is a much more economical (not to mention widely used) term.

Also, I have one more bone to pick. Could you please return the birthdays/years of people back to links? I find it very annoying now that I can't click on a birthday and see who shares it.

Cheers, Wikkitywack (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. These three things are all subject of more or less discussion:-

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings "All of the guidance in Article titles immediately above applies to section headings as well. "
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums specifically uses "Track listing" : you could start a discussion there, to have it changed to "Yrack list".
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) - after hundreds of pages of discussion, an Arbcom case, and several RFcs.

Hope that helps. Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich is quite right. There is no question that headers like 'Band Members', 'Additional Personnel' are in violation of WP:MOS. Smackbot appears to be acting correctly in this instance. Please take the matter up at WT:MOS if you are not happy about that. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
As for links to birthdays, it is not something that Smackbot has 'turned off' and cannot be 'turned on'. The consensus position established at WP:MOSNUM is that dates should no longer be linked unless there is good reason to do so; in such a case close connection (germane) must be demonstrable. Just so that it saves you from typing the date in the search box is, alas, not reason enough to link. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction[edit]

Hi Rich, just bringing to your attention my conclusion of the AN discussion. I've declared the proposed editing restriction enacted (cf Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community). It should not be a particularly burdensome restriction, and I hope you will take on board the remarks I made there, which I'll quote here: "I will say to Rich that the community recognises and appreciates the work you do in using and maintaining a range of powerful tools, but that with power comes responsibility, and you do need to ensure that you err on the side of caution in ensuring that these powerful tools, and your use of them, has sufficiently strong community support." regards, Rd232 ^talk 09:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OK it's not ideal, for many many edits, by many many editors include such changes (I hesitate to say almost all editors, but only slightly). You might like to glance at the section about "mixed martial arts", just copied to the talk page at WP:MoS, to see how seriously I take genuine objections, by editors who actually have an issue with the edit themselves, rather than on behalf of some slightly vague constituency. But no doubt this is the lesser of several evils. Thank you for your time. Rich Farmbrough, 09:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

I've stopped SmackBot briefly (I hope). Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Conclusion, and no doubt Femto Bot will copy the stop message in a second.. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the sort of dismissiveness for which you've been criticised repeatedly in this context, but OK. If you think the community as a whole supports what you want to do when there is no demonstrated consensus, it's up to you to organise/demonstrate one. Rd232 ^talk 11:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dismissive? I thanked you in two maybe three places. I am really floored - if you have read half of the discussion you will have seen that virtually none of it was about the "incidents" reported at ANI, but about not simply "no demonstrated consensus" but that there was anti-consensus. The ground gradually shifted as I demonstrated that was not so. In the end all we were left with was diff-bloat on automated edits, and as David Levy, who focussed on the point at AN said, this is no longer a problem. Xeno also said "we can put this one to bed". I am not objecting to the restrictions in that reply. I hope you did look at the MMA thread - did you? That is pretty typical of the feedback I have been receiving for four years. You said you "err on the side of caution" - I happened to think the MMA thread was an excellent example of that. Rich Farmbrough, 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't want to discuss it any further but, for the sake of clarity, I was referring to "I take genuine objections, by editors who actually have an issue with the edit themselves, rather than on behalf of some slightly vague constituency..." Rd232 ^talk 21:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Wasn't referring to you. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

I understood that. Rd232 ^talk 14:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

When I read the comment in question, "dismissive" was the word that entered my mind (before I'd reached Rd232's reply).

Perhaps it isn't intentional, but you do have a tendency to significantly downplay people's concerns. If an issue strikes you as trifling, you project this perception onto the individual[s] expressing the concern (taking for granted that it seems trifling to him/her/them too, and assuming that he/she/they must be persisting on blind principle rather acting pragmatically).

Again, perhaps this is unintentional. But you need to make a conscious effort to adequately address good-faith concerns, including those that you regard as frivolous.

I wish to conclude this message by reiterating Rd232's mention of your many positive contributions. For obvious reasons, we're more likely to come to you with complaints than with commendations, but that doesn't mean that we (including the complainants) don't appreciate your hard work. —David Levy 00:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Well you are doubtless correct - Epeefleche, for whom I also have great respect, also remarked, in praising me with faint damns, that my responses can be "curt". My intention is merely to be brief, polite, and to the point. Much as I enjoy the word-craft of a longer reply, ISTM that "yes you are right, here's what I'm going to to/have done." or "Yes, that is what happened, and I can see the reason that it might be surprising, here's why we do it." has generated many responses of "Thanks for fixing that [so quickly]" or "Thanks for explaining that". It is also interesting that this particular explosion started on 24th of September, not long after I sat down, having caught up the "difficult" dating items and identified three substantial areas where work was needed, (one, the smallest, was spelling fixes for version 0.8 2,400 articles I think) and started trying to do all three by hand. What was acceptable diff bloat at my normal editing speed became a problem, which is fair enough. And the ensuing conversation certainly slowed me down. The other point where perhaps, in this case, I am dismissive, is the editing restriction itself, I am compelled to abide by it on pain of "escalating blocks" what more is to be said? (Although I have blogged on the surprising scope of it, qv.) Rich Farmbrough, 02:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 39[edit]

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 20:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot replacing entities with characters[edit]

On Rockstar (drink) SmackBot changed an html entity to the character it represents. If you use the character then it requires that font to be installed. If you use the HTML Entity it just requires a capable font to be installed. It's a UTF-16 character too. Enlormn (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Font substitution generally happens regardlessly. FWIW, Mediawiki/Wikipedia uses UTF-8 encoding… —Sladen (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.. er.. WHS. Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

AFD[edit]

A bunch of your articles (Martha Lipton et al.) is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 28. East of Borschov 07:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 08:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

Sanapia[edit]

Expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully Rosie and I can compile more sources and DYK it. We are missing hundreds even thousands of notable articles like this across world cultures. Any entry in a national biography is notable in my view and as usual the nominator is confusing lack of content with notability. A quick google books search should have been more than enough to rid of doubt. I have no problem with short stubs of course, I created many in the past myself when I was faced with a similar situation, how do we go about getting notable content onto wikipedia which is misisng enmasse and encourage more editors to develop wikipedia whilst making the initial stub worthwhile? I believe any stub stands a better chance of it becoming a fuller article than if it was missing as at least its identified. The problem of course is actually getting people to do the work and expand them given the already huge backlog of substandard articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

please fix the ref error♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Epidendrum radicans[edit]

"removed stub tag"

Thanks. That's so kind of you — Jay L09 (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Isaac Moses"[edit]

A page you created, Isaac Moses, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. WikiTome ^Talk 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Eugene Ostroff"[edit]

A page you created, Eugene Ostroff, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. WikiTome ^Talk 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ANB stubs[edit]

I've just stub-sorted Janet Bragg. A couple of points occur:

The commas before and after the bracketed dates will always need to be removed - could you do this automatically?
Could you add "was a", so that the mini-stub becomes a sentence and is less likely to upset people? Ideally, of course, make it detect whether following noun is vowel or consonant and adjust to "an", but I think " X (dates) was a artist" is probably better than "X, (dates), artist".
What's the scope of ANB? Are all the people written about "American"? If so, could you include that in the text - "X was an American Y" (also gets round the a/an problem!)
I like the augmented stub tag {{-stub}}! PamD (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I'll take your word on the commas. They are not all American, but inserting a/an is trivial compared with some of the hoops. There are a few hundred, many of which will already exist, so I don't expect to get many stubs out of this, bu those that are created and don't need merging will be worthwhile. Rich Farmbrough, 08:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Another thought (had to break off earlier because Mother wanted breakfast...): you could add {{bio-stub}}. Might be better if there are a large number coming through at once which would flood the stubs category - on the other hand, a steady trickle will get themselves sorted more precisely, as in this case, by human stub-sorters. PamD (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's almost worth trying to make the categories from the data. But as I said there's probably only a couple of hundred, where I was able to find archives of the ANB updates pages. I am doing relatively small batches at a time, because I am going back and turning a few into redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 09:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Recent deletions[edit]

Hi,
On-base plus slugging (OPS), McGhee, Brownie, Ascending chain condition (ACC), Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification System and so on - were they part of a backlog for deletion of some kind? There's no specific reason given. Just curious.
--Shirt58 (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand. [[McGhee, Brownie]] should obviously have been [[Brownie McGhee]]. Were the others duplicates of articles with similar names?--Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I miss-created a bunch of redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 09:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Gasp! And here was I, thinking only klewless n00bs made mistakes. Thanks for the clarification.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes[edit]

Please weigh in on Talk:List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes#Inclusion of episode segment links, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Committee for getting things done[edit]

Getting things done? That would be a first for many LOL! Some people should take a leaf out of our book instead of sitting aorund moaning at ANI!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Translate Bot. Mmm now if that bot could be programmed to translate content from other wikipedias.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it though? Rich Farmbrough, 08:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

Red links[edit]

Hey Rich, would you happen to know how to fix the red link at Category:Articles needing additional categories from October 2010? and also the redlink'd category at the bottom of Category:Articles needing additional categories from September 2010? -- œ ^™ 08:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

'tis done. Rich Farmbrough, 08:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

Decapitalisation[edit]

For some odd reason the bot is decapitalising "General Secretaries". Please don't do this! Warofdreams talk 08:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, adjusting the mechanism. Rich Farmbrough, 15:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Great, thanks, it's working fine now. Warofdreams talk 22:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

100+ curious items, curious no more[edit]

... Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Curious in what sense, RF? -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The bold lede words are messed up in these articles. Gigs (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why not edit? Jee. btw, what is wrong so with my first dart LZ1? -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am doing, keep your hair on. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Glad you share your edit todo plan with us, RF. And about LZ1 again, why was that on the list? -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LZ1&action=historysubmit&diff=393829877&oldid=304634038 Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

So, I confused matters by fixing it - while looking at the list to try and work out what the common feature was, and before realising the answer! I think I fixed one or two more too. PamD (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All good stuff Pam! Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Quote marks in ANB entries[edit]

You created the stub Morris B. Moe Dalitz for a chap who was listed in ANB as "Morris B. "Moe" Dalitz". In fact there was an existing article at Moe Dalitz, with a redirect from Morris Dalitz. I think the ANB format of the name suggests that he's going to be listed as either "Moe Dalitz" or "Morris B. Dalitz", but not as "Morris B. Moe Dalitz". Perhaps names with quote marks should just flag up for manual attention? (I've turned your stub into a redirect, and added the ANB reference as "Further reading" to the existing article). PamD (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's a good point, as I remarked a few I changed to redirects myself. I'm [almost ?] done with ANB until their next update, unless someone buys me a subscription! Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Jesun[edit]

Really? Or did the middle letters of "Jesus Colon" get missed in a finger-fumble? PamD (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Defaultsort also very iffy! PamD (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There should be a law limiting the number of diacritics in one's name. Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 39[edit]

Template: Trial complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 02:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40[edit]

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S. Roads[edit]

Template_talk:U.S._Roads_WikiProject#Renaming_to_WikiProject_U.S._Roads. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. Rich Farmbrough, 21:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Religious[edit]

Smackbot made weird edit to Chelsea Dagger claiming it was a religous text. -- Horkana (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes thank, onto it, error in build 560. Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot's creation of monthly cleanup categories[edit]

Hi!

I've just spotted that Femto Bot has created 52 monthly cleanup categories for December 2010, and they're filling up CAT:CSD cos they're empty (and should be for a month) - is this intentional, or a bug?

Thanks

[stwalkerster|talk] 02:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a bug, I was aware of. They shouldn't get into CSD, that's a bug was unaware of. Rich Farmbrough, 02:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Taken care of. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

The bot is adding "place of death" and "place of birth" parameters to Persondata when "PLACE OF DEATH" and "PLACE OF BIRTH" are already given, resulting in unnecessary duplication.[90][91] DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, known bug see previous section. Rich Farmbrough, 08:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Why don't use standard AWB function? You can isolate it by using custom modules. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Eusebius (Bruno) of Angers listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eusebius (Bruno) of Angers. Since you had some involvement with the Eusebius (Bruno) of Angers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Unnecessary change to Persondata[edit]

Please see this edit. __meco (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, known bug (build 560/X1), since fixed (Build 561/X2). Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

AWB & templates starting with acronyms in upper case[edit]

As an editor involved in prior discussions over AWB, templates and first letter casing please consider commenting on this discussion thread. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

DEFAULTSORT[edit]

This sort of Smackbot edit adding a DEFAULTSORT with the page's exact title isn't even cosmetic: it seems entirely redundant. In any case, I don't think it should be happening (if there's a demonstrated consensus for it, please point me to it). Rd232 ^talk 09:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

We sort case-insensitive, therefore any article with words commencing with lower-case, with diacritics, with capitalised diacritics is a candidate for DEFAULTSORT. Rich Farmbrough, 09:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Because obviously there are so many other pages starting with "Michael Schimmel Center" which would be incorrectly sorted without this defaultsort. Thanks, this is a prime example of a useless edit that follows the letter of a (also useless) rule, but does absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 09:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Alright, then tell us please how this edit did improve Wikipedia? Which has the greater chance of happening, another article that starts with "Michael Schimmel Center" in a shared category with this one, which would then result in perhaps a slightly incorrect sorting (in some cases, not always), or a move of the Michael Schimmel Center to a new name which would then result in a completely incorrect sorting? Fram (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion made somewhere that it would be really useful to have a bot which would look at pages which were moved, and check whether the sort key still looks right and flag up for consideration those which looked problematic. I must say I don't think I've thought of checking for default sort when moving an article, and will do so in future... though most of the pages I move are stubs to which I often add a sort key if necessary (personal names, "The", or diacriticals in particular). In most cases, default sort keys are a help to the encyclopedia and allow articles to sort in the place the average reader would look within a category. PamD (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with defaultsorts used on pages where they are useful. Western-style named biographies should e.g. all have one, and for many lists and so on one may be useful as well. This is about pages that are not really sorted differently, the capitalisation of the second, third, fourth word is changed, which will often not sort it differently at all (e.g. the above example), or in the best case just move it up a few places in one of the categories of the article. Anyway, I have just started an RfC about this at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC on Sortkey issue. Fram (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well you tell me. I would answer that question, but I could spend a lot of time on it and the answer would likely be ignored. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

If you are not willing to even try to explain the usefulness of your edits, then please don't make them. Fram (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether's its useless is a matter of judgement. The issue is whether applying DEFAULTSORT in such cases automatically has consensus. Unless such consensus exists, it should cease. You're under edit restrictions requiring you not to make merely cosmetic changes (changes which have no effect on the rendered page) unless the changes have demonstrable consensus. DEFAULTSORT changes of any sort breach this restriction (unless they have demonstrable consensus). Where DEFAULTSORT leads to the article being sorted in categories under a different (better) letter heading, that consensus clearly exists from longstanding practice; by the time you get to the second and third word of a title, the sorting effects are comparatively trivial, and I'm not convinced there is a consensus for them. Maybe there is, but this is exactly the sort of thing you should be able to point somewhere and say "it's supported by this", or else stop and ask somewhere appropriate to confirm support. So please stop Smackbot making such DEFAULTSORT edits, unless or until you can show consensus for them. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is standard AWB practice, and of course the question of whether to stop after word 2 or word 3 or word 4 will have occurred to many. It's not however a simple decision because of the nature of collocations. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for bringing this edit to my attention, I have corrected the broken template which caused it. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:In Spanish[edit]

Template:In Spanish has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

I'm letting you know because you recently moved the template. Auntof6 (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Links to May 1968[edit]

Hi - your work de-linking date fragments is generally much needed. Just thought I'd draw your attention to the May 1968 in France article to which May 1968 redirects - some of these links may need disambiguation rather than removal. Warofdreams talk 04:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooh yes, thanks, it comes flooding back. thought I'd dabbed that but that was a while back. Rich Farmbrough, 04:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Edit restrictions[edit]

Rich, edits like this ~~by Smackbot~~ are in breach of your edit restriction. Perhaps this wasn't clear, so let me make it clear: cosmetic changes that don't have demonstrated consensus are not acceptable even if combined with non-cosmetic changes. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, what's this about? Rd232 ^talk 12:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How can you tell they were made by SmackBot? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

They weren't, they were by me, the bot is innocent. The second edit was delinking April 2009. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

The date delinking was clear; it was the wikify tag which was confusing - there seems no cause for it there. Rd232 ^talk 15:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Only one link, to Ghana. Rich Farmbrough, 07:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

The edit restriction applies to all accounts, so it doesn't really matter whether they were made by SmackBot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely note. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Similarly, there doesn't seem to be a good reason for the "wikify" added here. Fram (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No links in the article? Rich Farmbrough, 06:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Fair enough. Perhaps Template:Dead end is a more specific one though? Fram (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 39[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 19:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual Property High Court[edit]

Nice edit: "born May 2007" ... [92]. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 1 November 2010[edit]

News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about talk page tagging[edit]

I am currently trying to determine a way to find all the articles related to United States topics without any banners. Are you aware of anyway to do that? --Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but it would be possible to find many of them by looking for key strings, such as [[Category:American... Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

But of course one would have to remove the bannered articles, much easier with a full DB dump. Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

I have pulled in a couple of categories but there are dozens more yet to look through. The United States cat is so big its doubtful I could pull the whole thing at once anyway (around 400000 individual articles not counting the ones that show up in multiple US related categories). Do you know of a way I can tell AWB or something else to look for a blank page when scrolling through a category of articles? Its easy enough to "find" things in a page but I dont know how to find pages that are blanks without manually going through them. I cheated the last time by using excel to add [[ ]] around the talk page and the pasting it to a sandbox and cutting out the non red links. Seems like there must be a better way though. --Kumioko (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering but how big is a full DB dump? Several gig I would imagine.--Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The partial dump is 27 G. Rich Farmbrough, 17:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

Wow, thatll take a minute to download. Whats the difference between the partial and the full? --Kumioko (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The full (current) includes talk pages and is about double the size. The d/l files are compressed 6G+ and 11G+. The full with history is much bigger over 100G compressed and apparently expanding to 20 times that. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

OK thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Email system[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Email system. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - email. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at email - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footballer display[edit]

Template:Footballer display has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Persondata lowercase parameters[edit]

You might have left me a note about your change a few weeks ago to allow all-uppercase or all-lowercase parameter names for {{persondata}}. Rjwilmsi 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC).

I have to say I think it was a bad change, data is now harder to get out of the template for third party tools. It seems the change was made because one editor had a winge. Rjwilmsi 10:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot added Place of birth line to Persondata when the line was already present and correct[edit]

in this edit to Ian Muir. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(message to SB) Re my earlier message at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#SmackBot added Place of birth line to Persondata when the line was already present and correct. This is clearly not a one-off, see Willem Dafoe, Billy Ray Cyrus, etc. Probably duplicating the line does no harm, but probably I should have stopped it when I first noticed the problem before there were so many to be undone. Sorry if I've done the wrong thing. Struway2 (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, it's not a problem (i.e. does no harm, it's certainly a bug), and it's also easy to remove then, so either stopping or not stopping is is fine. Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

All bit edits reviewed and problems fixed. Bug

Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 09:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

<boilerplate>I have reviewed a sample of changes in the good faith to confirm that (hopefuly) that SmackBot is operating reliably; this is for the overall good of Wikipedia and without malice.</boilerplate>. SmackBot appears to need some love when it comes to renaming of capitalised templates (eg. it's doing {{imdb}}→{{iMDB title}}; {{ibdb}}→{{iBDB name}}).[93]~~[94]~~[95] I have no wish to maintain a discourse on the value or intent of the edits, but would just like to know that it has been fixed. The second edit (now that I look at it), also links to United States (WP:OVERLINK#Overlinking and underlinking). Again, I do not wish to have a discourse on the merit, but would just like to know that it is fixed. —Sladen (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an AWB bug already reported. (Incidentally it is preserving the case of the first letter as requested...) I think you pasted the same link twice? ~~

(WP:GAME). Second link fixed now, thank you. —Sladen (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mm no I think they introduced the case preserving code as a result of the recent hubbub, and didn't take into account acronyms. Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

I brought up the issue of the iMDB and IBDB to the AWB developers and it is a direct result of the communities decision that AWB not change the case that was resident. So this is not a problem with smackbot or AWB, this is a direct result of the communities decision. --Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a case of writing against the letter not the spirit. The spirit of the (repeated) requests by (dozens of) editors was to just stop messing around with redirects and apply some sane human oversight about what bots were doing—that this was pushed right to the wire and had to be codified in a sub-optimal way was a failure on the part of the bot authors and bot operators. What is really wanted is to just "do the obvious"; here, the ideal would be to remain fully lowercase (in this case) so that the net diff is simply appending " name" (which is what a human would do), leaving {{imdb name|…}} or {{ibdb name|…}}. —Sladen (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that the spirit was whatever I did there was still someone finding fault. But hey, that's Wikipedia, and I'm used to it. What I'm not used to is the stalking and every edit being touted as a trigger for arbcom, desysopping, banning or blocking. But I guess I will have to get used to that too, since people have discovered the joy of posting my name on ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 06:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Incidentally what you are requesting there is exactly what SmackBot was doing before people started the troubles. Rich Farmbrough, 06:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Who are these "Dozens of"??? Rich Farmbrough, 06:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

See, User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Index. Please stop presuming people have malintent everytime they bother to report simple, quick, fixable issues (you make a lot of edits, and you get a proportionate amount of notifications because of their general nature). It takes effort to report an issue to you, and then ten times that effort to deal with the predictable argument/rant that follows. Yet again, a simple request (which sounds like it already has a bug open at AWB? If so it is solved for me...) is being turned into a generic-Rich-Farmbrough-vs-the-whole-of-Wikipedia-polices rant. Finally, please stop interlacing/refactoring others' replies (this has previously been requested), and you, being an experienced editor should not need telling more than once. —Sladen (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

First I don't assume you have malintent. I am just very frustrated that you have not learned to avoid this hyperbole. Especially as others pick-it up and believe it. If you say "dozens" you should be prepared to back it up with a list of at least 24 people. Otherwise you are just making it up from a vague memory of a lot of people saying some stuff which was negative. In exactly the same way 35 threads on my talk page was characterized as "35 complaints". Usually I let this stuff wash over me, but really it has gone a bit far.

Secondly, please read the edit box for this page. Also some of that text appears below the save button. It is common practice to split comments in order to reply to the issues separately. Rich Farmbrough, 08:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

And thirdly the point that SmackBot got blocked for changing one {{silicate to {{Silicate explains why people are paranoid. Additionally doing good fixes that there is no-one or only one or two against has been declared no longer enough, they must, it seems have documented consensus. In this climate those who do the mass-tidying up are ditching the tiny improvements to save the small ones. Rich Farmbrough, 08:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Smackbot incorrectly changed "update after" date[edit]

Smackbot updated Leap second losing the date in the UpdateAfter template (diff). This means that the "dated flag" is showing for future events. Since this may lose information in a lot of articles I have stopped SmackBot. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I'll look into it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by D'oh! at 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Database scan[edit]

I don't know if it's easy but I would like to have an idea of how many articles that transclude {{Infobox officeholder}} or one of its 150+ redirects have |honorific-prefix= with <br> (or its variations) and how many don't.

Check Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#honorific-prefix. Is it possible that you make a database scan for me? Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should be easy. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Delayed by a slight diversion. Rich Farmbrough, 11:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Found 6 with just a break. Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

It was about 4384, as far as I could tell. Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot & Gurnee mills[edit]

On the entry for Gurnee Mills, the bot tried to add a date for a dl template, but ended up with more templates instead of the actual month and year. "{{Dead link|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}" I manually updated it. Andyross (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, known bug, awaiting bot approvals to implement fix. Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

If I configure FixSyntax() to replace |date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} when within ref tags will that work for your AWB usage? I'm not 100% happy to circumvent the MediaWiki bug, but it doesn't seem likely it will be fixed soon. Rjwilmsi 07:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I am using "check after" to look for the subst:string - normally I replace it using a rule but if I manually brought that rule back without the main dating rules I would be saving "without dating a tag" too often. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

rev 7314 I've added that logic anyway, since the problem might occur for other AWB users, so it's there if you would like to make use of it. Rjwilmsi 11:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh, well it was something I asked for, and given the MW bug is good, but right now it would mean SB making zero edits instead of a very few. Rich Farmbrough, 00:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Could you walk me through how this prevents you updating to the latest SVN? –xeno^talk 18:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, traditionally SB only saved if a non-minor find and replace was used. This virtually eliminated saves which didn't date tags (down to about 0.3% and in due course would have been a lot less (maybe 0) - by means of tagging many more rules minor). Now it is only doing GFs it needs a different mechanism, and that is checking for {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} after the changes have been made. Otherwise it will save on other GFs - whcih is fine by me, but would doubtless resulted in stops, blocks and other assorted problems. Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Having said that I am working with it now, just not exclusively. I have written a patcher this evening, and realised that I can just keep multiple versions in different directories (d'oh!) so a little more work and I will be able to have my cake while CBM eats it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for explaining. Best regards, –xeno^talk 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dates[edit]

When you're not too busy dealing with that time sump ANI, there are a bunch of articles in this category and through (for example, all the subjects on List of colonial governors of Massachusetts), many of which are in mdy or a mixture of dmy/mdy dates, which could do with being aligned to dmy dates per WP:TIES. You can probably tag them all {{EngvarB}} while you are at it. Thanks, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Doubt I am allowed to put invisible tags on pages. Rich Farmbrough, 17:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Editing request[edit]

It appears that there are some 6,000 articles which are linked month-year (ie [[September 2008]]). Could you in some way integrate unlinking these into your AWB schedule? I can only manage 50 a day, at which rate it will take me over 3 months. Gracias amigo. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We will get this done. Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Template:Legislatures of Italy[edit]

Hullo Mr. Farmbrough. I've started these. I was wondering if you could use AWB to edit III to XVI. Basically I need you to change the word "Governo" in each article to Government of and the word "Composizione del governo" to Composition of the government and also to remove the word "Dal" from appearing in each article. This would make it a lot easier. Perhaps you could also work out what the months are in english or check on Italian wikipedia to code something to do those too. E.g change "luglio" to July, "febbraio" to February, "marzo" to "March", "maggio" to "May" etc. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes or no?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes no problems with doing that. Rich Farmbrough, 00:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Done. I suggest the empty sections are removed. Rich Farmbrough, 06:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Excellent, thanks for that. Two things though "&endash;" is showing. Can you ensure it only shows the - not the coding? And it seems the custom for the govenrments is e.g Leone II Cabinet. Can you use AWB to change the links e.g from Government of Gasperi V to De Gasperi V Cabinet (his surname is De Gasperi not Gasperi) and Government of Rumor IV to Rumor IV Cabinet etc? User:Acterion is sorting out the page titles of the article he transferring from it wiki last night to ...Cabinet.. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You're like Will Farell in Austin Powers 2.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you do a search on "workplace" please[edit]

A while back you kindly did a search for me on section titles and redirect names containing the word "abuse". Please can you do exactly the same but with "workplace" this time.--Penbat (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can do that... redirects started. Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Redirects here. Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

thx i have grabbed it. And section titles ?--Penbat (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Here. Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

RE: Archimedes, Inc.[edit]

FYI - As someone who has worked on the page, it might interest you know that Archimedes, Inc. has been nominated for deletion. At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Archimedes,_Inc. Danieldis47 (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand Danieldis47, that as you have a financial relationship with the subject, you are concerned that your client's article could get deleted, but indiscriminate canvassing is discouraged. It is perfectly acceptable to notify contributors who have added substantial content, but notifying every user who has only done so much as fixing a typo (in this case, for a COI template), is borderline inappropriate.--res Laozi speak 02:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My good friend, am I being being stalked? What proof do you have of any so-called "financial relationships"? Why are you so averse to other editors knowing of your own good work? If something is "borderline," but only that, then why do you feel the need to sound an alarm? Thanks! Danieldis47 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse noticing a clear guideline violation with "stalking", which is a serious charge; as an editor involved with the discussion, I have a right to reply. Campaigning for !votes is against established consensus, and is considered a form of talk page spamming. Notifications should be given to users who have made substantial contributions to articles, not every editor in the editing history, especially if said controbution was just a typo correction. As admin User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry first brought up on AfD and then WP:SI, you've admitted to being paid to write articles on your Twitter account. This is an explicit violation of the neutrality policy.--res Laozi speak 03:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As you can see, my messages are entirely non-partisan and neutral, and they total only four in number. I do not know these editors and I have no idea what their opinions on anything are. They are simply the editors who made some edit(s) to the Archimedes, Inc. page. In addition, I should note there are no mentions of any payments of any sort for anything on my Twitter account. Cheers! Danieldis47 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is appropriate to notify users who have made substantial edits, like the anon IP. Notifying everyone in the edit history, even if their edit is as minor as a typo correction, is disruptive. I understand your frustration that your client's article is being nominated for deletion, but please refrain from breaking behaviour guidelines.

You posted a message specifically linking to the article (that you've now removed), but another post remains: http://twitter.com/#!/rslate Just put the finishing touches on a trio of Wikipedia pages for a client in Texas]" (which will likely soon disappear as well). But as Chase me Ladies pointed out, and as you've admitted on the AfD and your own talk page, there is overwhelming evidence that you have been paid to edit by a client, please do not obfuscate the point. Also, let's keep and continue the discussion on your talk page, and not bother other users. Don't let this be a race to have the last word. --res Laozi speak 03:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I have made no admissions about payment for anything in the locations you list. Go and see. (And I have not removed any links from anywhere - I would not even know how to do that in Twitter, if it's even possible...) Now, let's keep and continue the discussion elsewhere, and not bother other users. Don't let this be a race to have the last word. Danieldis47 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your admissions on Wikipedia are still there, but yes, let us end it. :) --res Laozi speak 04:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Imdb[edit]

Any chance SmackBot can replace uses of {{imdb}} with {{IMDb name}}? This only needs to be done in passing rather than en masse, but it's not ideal for an ambiguous template redirect to have so many transclusions. PC78 (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You can add any template redirects you think must be bypassed in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template_redirects. I added this one in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template_redirects#Other_templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! PC78 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was doing so, however SmackBot got blocked for changing case so these are currently dropped. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Incidentally mixed case trademarks are deprecated at MOSCAPS. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

References section added more than once[edit]

This one is similar, but for the references section. It was already present in the article, but SmackBot saved the edit anyway (and did not fix the problem) [96]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not priority

This is a cumulative diff of several consecutive smackbot edits [97]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Critical

Would have had time to sort this, but, Alas! Ani come first. Rich Farmbrough, 05:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Misread this: this will be fixed in a complete re-write of this functionality planned for RSN. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Too seriously and not seriously enough[edit]

Can I urge editors to take things both less and more seriously.

Take me, yourself, the apparatus, the process, policy, procedure, guidelines, hierarchy less seriously.

Take the work - the projects - the content , the presentation, the inclusiveness more seriously.

Do less and do more

Find out what you do that doesn't contribute to the encyclopaedia, and stop doing it.

Find out what you do that improves it and work out how to do it 10 times better, how do 10 times as much, how to do it 10 times faster, or preferably all three.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Piping unambiguous wikilinks[edit]

Please do not pipe/convert Wikilinks such as "Boston, Massachusetts" to "Boston, Massachusetts". The latter is twice as long in the source to the editor, and more ambiguous to the reader (WP:EGG, WP:ASTONISH). Other editors have previously notified you of this behaviour. Please alter your scripts to do the opposite, where possible. —Sladen (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How it this egg or astonish? I click Boston, I get Boston Mass - I didn't expect Boston Lincs. With the other layout I click Mass I get Boston. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Nor do I appreciate you hunting through my edits for something to take issue s with. Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

I wasn't going to comment, but I quite agree; not on Boston, necessarily, but you do it on other cities. {{city-state}}, which (long before deletion) used to provide a templated form of this, producing Boston, Massachusetts, was repurposed before recently being deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And you did do this on some articles I had watchlisted previously; this is not related to any current dispute between us, or the {{ucase}} problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue of creating two links Boston, Massachusetts was a disputed one, quite reasonably as the visual distinction between Boston, Massachusetts and Boston, Massachusetts is slight at best, and the discussion changed my mind on the unambiguous nature of that transition. However the slightly leaner linking philosophy now prevalent would discourage the Mass link there anyway. The template was source-code cruft in many ways, of limited applicability, and it is probably good that it has gone. I would be interested to know if you agree that this is EGG or ASTONISH or if you have a different reason for finding it a poorer format. Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Any chance we could just have a quick "thank you for pointing it out, I've now fixed it"? —Sladen (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That assumes that there's something to fix. Far from the dismissive attitude that editors (myself included) have criticised, Rich is attempting to discuss the matter and explain why he regards his changes as helpful. If nothing other than complaisance will satisfy you, that is rather dismissive. —David Levy 16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As in "hunting through my edits for something to take issue s with."? —Sladen (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it's certainly the impression I get. And I was hoping we were putting this stuff behind us. Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Rich's frustration is quite understandable, and he clearly is making a sincere effort to work through it. You're entitled to criticise edits with which you disagree, but Rich is equally entitled to defend them. —David Levy 16:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW if while stub-sorting etc I find a link to "Boston, Massachusetts" or Buffalo, New York I would usually change it to "Boston, Massachusetts, United States." or "Buffalo, New York, United States", if it's the first mention of the place (usually in opening/only sentence/paragraph of a stub), without first checking whether Boston, Massachusetts redirects to Boston. OK, Boston is a special case, being that rare phenomenon of a US city without state name in its article name, so in this particular case I'd be pipping to a redirect, but in general it seems better: each word goes where it says. PamD (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- "avoid linking ... the names of major geographic features and locations," (WP:OVERLINK#What generally should not be linked). I believe that a state or country probably falls within this. —Sladen (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  - Yes, I incline to the view in your second sentence. The combination of that with the proximity of the sublocation is why I don't leave the state linked. Not a biggie either way. Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC).
    - I'm happy to agree (for the sake of closing) this that it's no biggie. If it is no biggie, and already in the format Fort William, Scotland, please could it be left as-is. There are other, more valuable and less controversial edits to be making which AWB is much better suited to, and the full form helps when articles are printed. —Sladen (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop de-canonicalising links where there is matching link and article text. These edits reduce the usefulness of the encyclopedia. —Sladen (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You're still doing this, please get a clear, documented, consensus, or stop and work on edits that are uncontroversial. —Sladen (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Dates in persondata[edit]

Thank you for updating the persondata here; a quick note however that per WP:Persondata the birth and death dates should be in the format DD Month YYYY format or the Month DD, YYYY (with the month spelled out completely). Thank you, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good point. Since Persondata is for machine reading, however, I'm inclined to think YYYY-MM-DD is harmless ( I don't say preferable, because so many instances have spelled out dates that applications will need to deal with at least the formats supported by the time.php functionality.) Rich Farmbrough, 16:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

How would the program know whether you had used the YYYY-MM-DD format or the YYYY-DD-MM format? Using the Steven L. Thorsen example linked above, how would it know whether to read the date as September 11, 1953 or November 9, 1953? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no YYYY-DD-MM format. That's why YYYY-MM-DD is the only all-numeric format allowed on WP. (There are however thousands of cases of mm/dd/yy and dd/mm/yy - which I started cleaning up on or about the 24th of September. Must get back to that.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Given that explanation it seems even more important to use the full month examples provided at WP:PERSONDATA. You happen to know that the date will only be read as YYYY-MM-DD, but the average editor likely will not. There is nothing stopping said editor from adding the birthdate in YYYY-DD-MM format in persondata, which will be incorrectly interpreted as YYYY-MM-DD by WP programs. This is specifically why it is requested to spell out the month in order to avoid any possible confusion. So, while your way of editing the date may not cause any issues with how the program reads the date, it can certainly cause issues with editors viewing the style you have chosen to use and misapplying it in other persondata templates. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about persondata or why it is calling for long date format but there is no system in the world that uses YYYY-DD-MM. –xeno^talk 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects ending in punctuation[edit]

Rich, it seems you are (automatically?) creating redirects (see WP:AN). It was noticed that some of these redirects contain a useless final punctuation (e.g. Geometric mean,). Is there a mistake in the script? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes as ever there's more cruft behind the cruft. I have just tidied some 100+ articles with strange things going on in the bolding itself. Spotting commas and stops is better left to automated means than my eyes so I have pulled them out automatically, plus just about everything else that is problemful. It's still hard to see if this is a bottable task just yet, since the variability is so great. Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Hi Rich. Just letting you know that the thread at AN is apparently still vaguely active, as Fram has just brought up your recent redirect creations there. What method are you using to create these redirects? It seems that your using the bolded text in the lede of the article to decided what redirects to create. This suggests to me that you're using semi-automated or automated methods. If you're using semi-automated (or automated), why is this not clear in your edit summary? If you're using semi-automated, then why are you making mistakes like the ones mentioned at AN? They aren't particularly difficult to spot. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RF, probably related: can you describe why you created these redirects? They are all from a bold text in the lead. And all strangely doubling by abbreviation. How could that be a serious "alternate name"? Algorithm involved?

Eusebius (Bruno) of Angers
Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
Biathlon World Championships (BWCH)
On-base plus slugging (OPS)
Customer relationship management (CRM)
Ascending chain condition (ACC)
Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification System

-DePiep (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

They are reasonable redirects, people may well cut and paste these. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Nope. Not a chance of their being reasonable redirects. They reflect two different possible redirects; for example, the first would reflect Eusebius of Angers and Bruno of Angers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Two as in disambiguation? Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Two is in (in this case) Bruno of Angers redirecting to Eusebius of Angers, with possible links from (disambiguations) Bruno and Eusebius. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I may be wrong but it seems he was never known as Bruno of... either Eusebius of... or Eusebius Bruno of... The parenthetical can reasonably be part of an identifier, whether recycled from Wikipedia, generated externally, or from the same source as we have it. Nonetheless I am avoiding parentheticals. Rich Farmbrough, 05:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

In any case, I'll probably nominate the redirects for deletion shortly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"people may well cut and paste these" you write. RF: how, when and where is that? I have never read such a Wikipedia-usage in this. How is that a reasonable alternative? And, of course: what automateed algorithm did you use? -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Gustave Ferdinand Niebaum[edit]

Another duplicate - already at Gustave Niebaum. Made into redirect and added the ANB as "Further reading". PamD (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Added his middle name to the lead. Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Similarly Hubert F. Julian. PamD (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

and Eugene Jacques Bullard. Enough for one night. PamD (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at pre-empting these, by creating redirects, unfortunately not all biogs have the middle name or initial in an obvious place. Rich Farmbrough, 03:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

R. H. Macy another, in the opposite direction - ANB had shorter name than WP: seemed highly unlikely that we hadn't got anything on him. PamD (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done this too, with Virgil Clarence Blum and Horace L. Hunley. I'll prob fix more as time allows, just wanted to make sure you were aware of the situation. KConWiki (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that on my recently usable watchlist! Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

I worry about the ones which are slipping through the net: I've picked up several while stub-sorting, because I've now started to search on surname or other terms to check whether they're already listed, and obviously one other editor, at least, is doing so too. But not everyone will spot them. How many of these stubs are going to get developed into duplicate articles, to the detriment of the encyclopedia? Your idea of (semi-?)automatically creating redirects from bolded names in article leads seems very useful, I've always felt that we should be much more lavish in creating redirects from alternative versions, especially with/without middle names/initials. Thinking of it, perhaps when your bot creates an article for Foo Middlename Foooo it should also create redirects from Foo M. Foooo, Foo M Foooo and Foo Foooo? Then if any of those can't be created because they already exists, it could flag up the need for possible hatnote or dab page? PamD (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the last of them are now out of Category:Stubs. Some will have gone out into the world as duplicate articles, I suspect. Another time you're doing a project like this you need a better algorithm (automated or human) to check whether people are already in the encyclopedia under a different variation of their name. I added a couple of them to dab pages while I was stub-sorting them, too. There seems to be a huge and useful job needing to be done out there, creating redirects (or adding to dab pages or hatnotes) from variations of names: both the full form of name as spelled out in bold in many articles (but coping intelligently with the ones like 'Joseph "Joe" Bloggs'), and the shorter forms of names for 'Joe Foo Bloggs', where the "Foo" may be absent, or "F." or "F". (Perhaps not the latter as against WP:MOS? Not sure!). Redirects are so valuable in (a) helping the reader find what they want and (b) helping the careless editor avoid creating a duplicate article (ie helping them find the existing one even if they haven't thought to look carefully for it!). PamD (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

ANB[edit]

I think what you are doing in adding these articles is very helpful, but I wonder if you intend to leave them as is, or to add more information. For example, I think the highest priorities would be to indicate why what they did was important enough to get them into the ANB in the first place, which is not always obvious. You're really in the best position to do this right at thetime you are making the article with the ANB entry in front of you--to do it later is considerably harder. And, if possible, it is very good to also have a freely-accessible reference. and google books makes it fairly easy. I think if you did these two things it would slow you down to maybe half speed, but it would make your work many times as useful. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, sadly I do not have access to ANB, merely to some of their pages that list articles. This is a fairly small exercise, therefore, and may well be worth revisiting if I do get ANB access. In fact at $14.95 for a month it is tempting. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Then if you want to continue this way, you will still be able to find references for almost all of them --certainly for all of the 19th century people--in google books, so you can fill in the material from there. Please, do this before making other articles. If ANB is need for filling them in, others do have this access. I, for example, do have this access, but my priority to is to try to save those articles which are nearing their time-limits. I have for some time been trying to arrange a system for active article creators like you to have access to resources like this, but it is apparently not one of the Foundation's priorities. nAnyway, you oribably do not need to pay for it if you are near a decent public or academic library. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll investigate that. I am aware that a lot of people are more likely to expand an article than create one, so having a little structured data available is quite useful from that point of view. The other "update" pages simply have hte name and birth/death dates, which I judged insufficient information. ANB also have an article of the day, which perhaps should get mentioned daily at the biography project. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

It appears I should have access to loads of good stuff, but appearances are deceptive in this case... Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

In the UK, most if not all public libraries subscribe to various online services which members can then access from their homes: I have access to Dictionary of National Biography and the archive of The Times. Do US libraries provide a similar service? As ANB is also published by Oxford University Press I'd think it possible? PamD (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the UK Pam. Unfortunately none of the services you mention accept my barcode. I'll talk to the Library on Monday. Rich Farmbrough, 08:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Ah, I suppose the work on ANB made me think you were the other side of the pond. You need to find your local library service's equivalent of http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Community_and_living/Libraries/Libraries__online_information_resources.aspx - you can find the library page from the local council's website. I think that you might have to use their particular link, as well as your bar code, for it to be recognised. And, sadly, ANB isn't included. But you'll probably have access to The Times, ODNB, the online equivalents of Grove's dictionaries of Art and Music, Who's Who/Who was Who, Britannica, and the British Library's 19th-century newspapers (lots of local and regional titles). Enjoy! PamD (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's right, I'm really working on migrating DNB articles form Wikisource. The ANB was just a "few moments while I create any missing stubs" I seem to have the same package as you, but I renewed my card a few weeks ago, I expect they will tell me "it's not on the system yet" or some such. Rich Farmbrough, 08:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

but this is exactly what I have been unsure about. It is in my opinion, better to have a sketch with basic information than nothing, but I think it is better to have such a sketch than an outdated biased interpretative article that ignores everything found out during the last 100 years about the person and the events he was engaged in (I deliberately use "he" to indicate the pervasive bias)

However, there might be a compromise solution: since wikisource is, after all, open, we could put in a sketch and a link: for further details, as they were see in 1900, see [wikisource link] instead of actually including the text. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh no... I'm not being clear, the Wikisource stuff is a complete transfer of content, slight modernising of language, linking, reffing, as the first stage. I would expect the article to be brought up to date by reference to ONDB and other sources. It should be clear what comes from where. Wikisource is in aspic, Wikipedia is living - if the Wiksource content ends up entirely superseded, then that's fine. Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Personal attack?[edit]

If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at this comment and telling me if you think it is appropriate? Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It may not be appropriate, but having said that it's not really in the realm of a personal attack, though perhaps closer than would be ideal. It looks like neutral parties are active on talk page already, so I think it should all calm down. I will say that opening of the thread was not helpful, and I will also say that any blanket prohibition of You Tube looks rather outdated, although there are many factors that make it an undesirable source, not so much unreliable. Rich Farmbrough, 03:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

I think the larger debate about YouTube can be sorted out with an RFC, which is the direction things seem to be taking. But, that comment, and not for the first time, makes all of this seem as if it is some irrational whim on my part to simply be divisive and obstructionist. When I deleted the comment, and gave the user a warning for a personal attack, the comment was reinstated, and the warning was removed with a snarky comment. So, rather than remove the comment again, or reinstate the warning, I wanted an administrator not involved in the larger debate to take a look. I have no grudge against Athene cunicularia, but I would prefer she keep personal comments to herself. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did see that. I am watching the page if that is of any solace. Rich Farmbrough, 04:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Frankly, no, it isn't. I would like to know why such an inflammatory message, which adds nothing to the discussion, a discussion which was, at that point, moribund, is allowed to stay. It seems clearly intended to offend and start trouble, reinserting it, after I objected, and removing the warning with a snarky comment, makes her intention clear. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lastname, Firstname[edit]

Do you have approval for creating redirects from Lastname, Firstname to Firstname Lastname. I don't consider it harmful, but I thought you were under community sanctions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong; that wasn't covered by the approved community sanctions. You still probably should have gotten approval. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

These are all the head name of an article in ANB. So reasonably prominent and guaranteed usage. We did talk about approval for AWB runs but never got anywhere wit that. Right now I wanted to get this miniproject out of the way so that I can get back to DNB. Well it is almost done. Rich Farmbrough, 07:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

I still think they are improbable for someone to type in, even by copy/paste. However, none of them are misleading until someone disambiguates (or changes the "primary use") of the Firstname Lastname article and doesn't handle the corresponding Lastname, Firstname. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Note sure I understand, if we decide John Smith₁ is the primary topic for "John Smith", instead of John Smith₀ then he will, except in unusual cases, be the primary topic for "Smith, John". The same applies to dabs. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Error?[edit]

Might be a one-ff but stopping since I wasn't sure. Bot replaced refimprive tage with one based on religion. Probably an easy fix but figured it was better to give you the heads up over having it throw the religion based template up on multiple unrelated articles.[98] Nice work besides the hiccup.Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 07:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes stopping is best. 750 edits to review is much better than 7500! Rich Farmbrough, 08:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Problem fixed and all reviewed manually. Rich Farmbrough, 15:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Femto_Bot_4#Discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–xeno^talk 15:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Automated/semi-automated creation requires BRFA[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass article creation and seek BRFA for any subsequent mass creation tasks; I think redirects are probably included in the spirit of this rule. –xeno^talk 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40[edit]

Template: . *

Edits by:

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Gigs at 02:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Template redirect -> template[edit]

This is in breach of the editing restriction. It does reflect a spelling correction renaming of the template, but nonetheless, it's exactly the sort of thing you're supposed not to do. Particularly as there are other issues arising at the moment, I must ask you to cease that specific change unless you can show consensus for it. Rd232 ^talk 11:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate it's a pain to have to show consensus for things like that, but you must be able to identify things which need it. If it's too much hassle to get/show consensus for them, well then just don't do them. It's quite clear that you have loads of other useful stuff to be getting on with that doesn't raise such issues. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is on the basis of red-links appearing on some of the category pages - corrections to those red-links cause potential longer term problems. It's a template move I didn't really want to do anyway, but I figured the guy asked nicely, seems to matter to him, and it does no real harm so I moved it. It is indeed a "long standing template" which I created in 2007, and have improved considerably since. But it is no big deal, any problems will resolve themselves in five years as the categories age off. I shall remove it from my list. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Sockpuppet to me[edit]

Thx for the quick revert. (I was still figuring out what to do when I saw it was gone. ;p) I can only say, if I'm going to be a sockpuppet, that's the guy I'd want to be puppeting (?) for. ;D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got a slightly less elevated puppetmaster. Rich Farmbrough, 07:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

A correction and a question[edit]

As you are probably aware, I regularly spotcheck your contributions, and am glad to say that I haven't found real problems anymore (i.e. things that you should have checked and catched yourself instead of others). A few small remarks and questions: is there a reason that you remove the comment from the Persondata template, like here? And I think there is a small error in your script, where you first use the defaultsort for the persondata template, and then correct the defaultsort, instead of the other way around, e.g. here. Similarly, here you correct the defaultsort but not the same entry in the persondata. Perhaps you can reverse the order of checking these? Fram (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the code is designed to not create the persondata with the comment, which is rather redundant, rather than to remove it, however I wanted to get the run complete in order to reboot, so I didn't worry about it over-much. Should not happen in future. As to the name= field being taken from DEFAUTLSORT, this is a good AWB fix generally for a blank name= field, but is subject to a number of problems which mean it will need to be refined. In particular it should probably use its own DEFAULT sort calculation, compare that with the existing, and flag a difference. this is because DEFAULTSORT can include stuff like Elizabeth 02 which is not suitable as a name. the name of the article can of course be used. The issue around Persondata is that it is to some extent still a solution in search of a problem. this makes it hard to determine the correct way to implement it. Again if name= is redundant to DEFAULTSORT or DEFAULTSORT PAGENAME, then we should not be coding it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Allright, thanks. Fram (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cat sorting[edit]

This isn't a strong area for me, it's not clear to me why 2004 Governor General's Awards for example is sorting under "G". I poked around the templates it's transcluding, but I didn't see a defaultsort keyword in them. Gigs (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

[[Category:Governor General's Awards]]
[[Category:2004 in Canada|Governor General's Awards]]
[[Category:2004 literary awards|Governor General's Awards]]

Content categories should always be explicit, and almost always are. Rich Farmbrough, 17:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41[edit]

Template: . *

Edits by:

Femto Bot at 07:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Rjwilmsi/test at 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at .
Last edit by anyone was by Rjwilmsi/test at 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Fram at 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42[edit]

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Fram at 08:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Fram at 08:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Fram at 08:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Fram at 08:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Gigs at 13:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Gigs at 13:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Gigs at 13:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Secher[edit]

The article David Secher has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010[edit]

Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

WikiProject report: WikiProject California

Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

Election report: The countdown begins

Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 13:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 13:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 05:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 05:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 08:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 05:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 05:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

the the[edit]

Thank you for creating the list of duplicate words at User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp113. Now (deep breath), how much extra effort would it be to create a list of the 16219 articles that contain "the the"? This is one of my pet projects; I've found and fixed several thousand "the the" errors using AWB Google search and regexps, but the AWB Google search is frustrating to work with. A full list would keep me quiet for a while! -- John of Reading (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm don't want you quiet, want you active! I can make the list easy enough though. Did you find any false positives previously? Rich Farmbrough, 09:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Oh it's that many lines, not necessarily that many articles. Rich Farmbrough, 09:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

There are a few false positives, mainly thanks to the band The The. I use "Skip if only minor replacements made" to catch that one. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I guessed, but this is only "the the" not "The the", "the The" if "The The" etc. Rich Farmbrough, 09:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

16219 examples of lowercase "the the"? Oh dear! So this won't help with "the The Times" and such like. The only false positives I can think of for lowercase "the the" will be in quotations and web page titles faithfully copied into Wikipedia, with or without a "sic". -- John of Reading (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but no but yes. That's the number of raw hits from the database dump, includes edit summaries (latest per page), multiple lines per page, templates, and template docs, and WP pages and various other stuff. Looking more like 3000 articles. Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Let's go for it then. My sandbox would do. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK ETA 8 minutes. Rich Farmbrough, 10:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Got it! Thank you very much. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

VernoWhitney RfA[edit]

Can you close VernoWhitney's RfA? Thanks! (looking for an admin to close; few online) Perseus!Talk to me 13:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

VernoWhitney at 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Xeno at 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 11:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by VernoWhitney at 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by VernoWhitney at 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 36[edit]

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

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 00:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38[edit]

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

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 12:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 39[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by D'oh! at 14:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 08:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Fram at 10:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
D'oh! at 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 08:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
D'oh! at 10:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Fram at 10:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by D'oh! at 10:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

ESSENTIAL INFORMATION[edit]

Dear administrator Nagarjuna Akkineni - article semi protection requested. Unexplained dubious and disruptive edits BY -180.106.5.60 & 117.82.98.99 & Rajeshbieee -sock puppetry Administrator semi protection requested for this article immediately - USE TALK PAGE

(Roughstrikes (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)).

Information - disruption[edit]

sure, will give explanation The user 180.106.5.60, 117.82.98.99 have used senseless edits and peacock terms like extraordinary, Most popular and extremly talented, to spoil the integrity and quality of article and are used excessively to defame and mask some of the facts in the article. some edits are also being done in removing the reflist Tag in the references section.

I request a strong scrutiny and surveillance on this article on the use of Unexplained edits by any IP ADDRESS AND USE OF PEACOCK TERMS. IN THE NEXT DUBIOUS EDIT USING PEACOCK TERMS OR DISRUPTING REFERENCE TAGS, PLEASE UNDO THE EDIT AND SEMI PROTECT THE ARTICLE. I am not interested in things like Height of the person. What I look for is a semi protection of this article. And peacock term which try to mislead real facts of the article.(Roughstrikes (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)).

Information[edit]

further,

Is there any chance to add the first image in the below link, as a profile picture in the article.

how to make the first image of the actor in the link licenced??? to add this in wiki???

is it possible for u to add it??? - the first image of the actor in the below link

http://www.shortfun.com/akkineni-nagarjuna-5263

(Roughstrikes (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)).

Image[edit]

sure will post image request,

but could this image be added???

http://www.extramirchi.com/events/filmfare-awards-south-exclusive-photo-gallery/attachment/56th-filmfare-south-awards-8/ or http://www.extramirchi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/56th-Filmfare-south-Awards-8.jpg

the above pic is not a copy right i guess, as it was freely uploaded by the originator

excluding person in white dress - who is KJ yesudas

(Roughstrikes (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)).

Sloppy typo correction[edit]

Please be more careful when applying corrections, particularly in abbreviated journal names (which are highly variable). In this edit you created an error. I have fixed it for you. -- Scray (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I assumed it was "Proceedings". Rich Farmbrough, 05:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Malian Family Code[edit]

i forget now who the reflink bot is, but can you request it for this page.(Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)).

Ok, but next time ask on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Iraqi parliamentary election, 2010[edit]

ah. wasnt sure it was your bot. but i just nominated this for itn and there are bare refs. thanks in advance.(Lihaas (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)).

I just ran reflinks on it, seems to have helped. Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

messed up "Update after" in Leap second again so that it displayed "invalid expression" in the article[edit]

messed up "Update after" in Leap second again so that it displayed "invalid expression" in the article diff. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If I remember {{update after}} will have come from the list you provided me Rich, though I can't now remember where that list is, so I may be wrong. Rjwilmsi 11:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's on your list at User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp102. Rjwilmsi 11:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It was, you pulled it at 8:02 this morning. I pulled it form my list a little earlier, but it was more problematic on my list, on the AWB list it was just ineffective. I had special rules too which were slightly off. Guess I must have been implementing them around 24th September... Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot adding date tag to Template:Disputed chem[edit]

Hi Rich. Template:Disputed chem does not have a parameter for the date. Hence, there is no use of such edits. --Leyo 12:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but it does. It is used to add it to the hidden category Category:Accuracy disputes from November 2010. All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

…because you changed it and I did not remark it. --Leyo 13:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah that'll be it. Seems like a lifetime ago. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

Rivaroxaban[edit]

Blimey, that was quick! thanks! best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Synchronicity! Rich Farmbrough, 16:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

A note[edit]

Eliminating such edits would save time of the editors who monitor recent changes and their watchlists. May I ask you to do so? Materialscientist (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 11:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Not really. How about this kind of edits. Please do reconsider edits introducing minor corrections. Materialscientist (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Mirror Bot[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35[edit]

Template: Approved.. *

Edits by:

Jarry1250 at 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Jarry1250 at 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38[edit]

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

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 12:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 12:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request SmackBot 38[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Hyphenating adjectival use of units[edit]

Hi, Just a suggestion that this could be done using the -adj switch in the Convert template. Cavrdg (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Echoing what Cavrdg said, and also noting that per WP:MOSNUM and the Convert template, the parenthetical item does not take a hyphen. But for example, for your edit at Interstate 185 (Georgia), instead of

49.30-mile (79.34-km)

you could have typed

{{convert|49.30|mi|km|adj=on}}

which would have produced the output

49.30-mile (79.34 km)

Not only would this make things easier for you, but it would also make everything flow better within the current MOS and any future changes via the template. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's certainly an idea. I have mentioned at Mosnum. By the way I (any TP stalkers) improved pixiedust and will now be using it a lot.

The convert template is not magic pixie dust

Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

In thr last couple of days you seem to have resumed using your main account for automated editing. Please stop, get approval for this process and use a separate account for this. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not the speed of the editing which identifies them as bot-like, but the scale of the task. You were blocked for performing non-approved bot tasks on your main account, and you are still continuing to do so. This will likely lead to another block of your main account. Will you please stop and go to BRFA? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you visited BRFA recently? Rich Farmbrough, 09:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Note BRFA approved, trial done. lets archive this. Rich Farmbrough, 10:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Aberdaron[edit]

Hi, the only obstacle stopping this current GA candidate from GA i think is the references. But isn't there a bot which can fill out the references with cite web |url|title=|publisher=|accessdate=? If so can you arrange it to sort out the references?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you reply? I could have sworn there was a reference bot.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I started off naming all the reference tags. I am now forbidden to finish that task. Rich Farmbrough, 17:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

At-risk BLPs[edit]

Hey, very good work, how did you generate that list?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I used the marvellous WP:AWB to generate a list of articles that contained risk-words, then wrote a little concordance type application to produce the report. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

big Oops - would you please correct?[edit]

There were two articles entitled "The White Company". I was attempting to change the title to the first "The White Company" to "The White Company, The Novel - and the second article with same name to: "The White Company (The Medieval Mercenaries). I failed and my attempts to correct failed. Can you please correct. All criticism accepted - am deeply sorrow - will not attempt again until I am fully versed in how to do it, etc., etc., etc. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No problems Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

The only people who don't make mistakes don't make anything. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

You are very gracious to say that. Thanks again Mugginsx (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot - replacing _ in C type names[edit]

I noticed that smackbot is replacing _ characters in C typenames like size_t. It most recently did this in offsetof and I see that you fixed one of the changes. I wonder if a rule to exclude titles that match /.*_t$/ would be sufficient to avoid these pages. -- Autopilot (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked some time ago for an AWB feature, for Mod_perl etc, I'm pretty sure it was implemented, so should be extendable (extensible?) to type-names. Rich Farmbrough, 18:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Bug raised. Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Persondata[edit]

I have to admit I personally dont care where it goes but since it really doesnt affect the article and is usually not even displayed I admit there is a lot of logic ot your idea of putting at the end. Its really not a part of the article anyway other than to gather basic data about the articles for different reasons. What is the Person authority, Im not familiar with that one. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So is that a template we should be adding as well? If so whats the template I would like to see it. --Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So is this template to allow those databases to draw data from WP or to link us to them? Does it have to be a government controlled source or would any website using a control number qualify (like Find a Grave, Hall of Valor, IMDB to name a few)? --Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your absolutely right about the Persondata. I can see uses coming out of it but until we have the majority of articles tagged rather than a minority it really is useless. --Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Were definately making a dent, but with roughly only half done we still have a ways to go before useful becomes reliable I think. BTW, good luck selling this, folks in these parts dont cotton ta change much, they like things nice and quite like. --Kumioko (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick yeah me too...its seems that we wiki-ites have become victims of our own democratic process....wheres a good monarchy when you need one. --Kumioko (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: Template:Citation needed[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Template talk:Citation needed.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Spike Toronto 20:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

subpage User:Rich Farmbrough/temp17[edit]

Your subpage User:Rich Farmbrough/temp17 has a bunch of categories on it, or more accurately it is in a bunch of categories. I noticed because I was looking at the category for articles tagged for {{prose}} and it was in the oldest month. Did you want to change that to [[:category:... with the colon first so it is a link to the category or is it serving some purpose that didn't occur to me yet? RJFJR (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. It served its purpose (which was creating those categories in the first place I think), so I have deleted it. Rich Farmbrough, 10:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Thoughts on my proposed revision of this BLP?[edit]

Hi there Rich, I happened upon you via the Wikiproject Biography. After looking at the edit history and Talk page on the Jacqueline Hernández article, it became clear to me that this article could use some help. While I do not know the subject of this article personally, I happened to meet her very briefly in part of my work within her industry. While on the subject of WP, she mentioned that the existing version of the Wikipedia article about her was created by a family member of hers who - as you can see - was entirely unaware of the policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia.

In the interest of bringing this article up to Wikipedia's own WP:BLP standards, I've drafted a proposed revision which currently lives in my userspace here: User:Jeff_Bedford/Proposed_draft_of_Jacqueline_Hernandez_article

The main revisions I've made in this draft include:

rephrasing throughout in a neutral tone
citing reliable sources in places where citation needed tag was present
removing unsourced content
removing non-encyclopedic content
cleaning up formatting issues
I am also looking to obtain a photo which is licensed as CC Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, and will add this in the near future

Normally I'd implement these proposed changes myself; however I thought it would be helpful to get a second set of eyes prior to doing so. If you have a moment, might you be able to take a peek and advise on whether my draft is a step in the right direction? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly look like an acceptable article, I have made a few minor tweaks - I am assuming the Commissioner and "Judge" roles are voluntary work? It does still read a little like a CV but I suppose that's natural for that group of people. The trouble with good citing is the wikitext becomes hard to read, so I have pulled the refs to the end, if you don't like this back peddle one rev. Rich Farmbrough, 08:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for such constructive and detailed feedback - as time is a finite resource, I appreciate you taking yours in this way. Following your thoughts, I've implemented these changes in the article, and also left a note on the article's Talk page to explain the background of these edits. Kind Regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010[edit]

News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Why, when I planned ot get up at 5 this morning am I still on-wiki at 4:32? Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Addicted like me I guess. I have to get up in three hours. --Kumioko (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Small request[edit]

Per your restrictions, would you please remove the capitalisation of {{death date}} from your AWB rules. See an example here, and in future please take more care when using AWB to spot these yourself. I've tried running the normal AWB, and it doesn't appear to change the template when testing at Anne Brontë. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll check it out. Rich Farmbrough, 10:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes this was one of the runs interrupted on the 24th September. So there may have been a few things still in rule-set. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Great, has this one been removed now? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Brilliant, thanks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I simply dumped all the useful but not essential rules. It means many more edits will happen, but I don't really have any control over that. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot using wrong syntax for update after[edit]

Update after uses numeric dates, see [99] for your bot's errors. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, currently fixing. Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

And it continues [100]. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

null edit[edit]

He Rich, did I see correctly Smackbot making a null-edit here? No harm done, just harder for others to spot the changes made just before it... L.tak (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks. It's unfortunate there are a couple of factors making this more likely than otherwise would be the case, firstly having had a mammoth backlog to deal with, and secondly time I had meant to spend last month on making the rule-set more unlikely to make such edits was wasted in other pursuits. Thanks again for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

Apology[edit]

I sincerely apologise that this dispute on a user's financial COI has spilled on to your talk page. It shouldn't have escalated the way it did, but the issue has been resolved. This is my first time encountering a paid editor, and I apologise for any incovenience that the dispute may have caused.--res Laozi speak 05:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Being paid is not the worst form of POV. Rich Farmbrough, 08:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Smackbot blocked[edit]

For making edits like this and this and this. You need to sort this out: it is a violation of your editing restrictions and cannot be that hard to make the bot respect them. Rd232 ^talk 16:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it is reasonably hard, however if I hadn't lost hundreds of hours of my life to ANI it would be a lot better. Rich Farmbrough, 17:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

OK. Rd232 ^talk 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bug[edit]

Please fix. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. TY. Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

CFWE-FM[edit]

Please do not use AWB on radio station articles. In categories they are listed alphabetically by call name, and the user who created them decided to sort them using all upper case letters. AWB "fixes" this by changing the letters following the first to lower case, but this causes a sorting error in the categories, which are case sensitive. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that particular category has DEFAULTSORT that is not appropriate regardless of case, since dropping the C is only useful in certain categories (sub cats of Canadian radio stations I suppose). Although it may seem contrary to common sense I believe the approach at CBCX-FM is better. This explicitly states the non-intuitive sort. The reason for AWB fixing the DEFAULTSORTS is precisely to make them case insensitive, until such time as MediaWIki provides a better sort. There is a MediWiki bug that applies, but I can't remember the number. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

I realize that it doesn't follow policy/procedure, but for all the Canadian radio station categories to work, all the sorts have to be the same. I don't want to go through the hundreds changing them, do you? 117Avenue (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what I do. Rich Farmbrough, 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

OK all done I think, but there are still anomalies, for example:

CFOU-FM
CFPP-FM
VF8012
CFTH-FM
CFTX-FM

Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Probably because it says [[Category:French-language radio stations in Quebec|French-language radio stations in Quebec]], it should be categorized under the V or the 8. Otherwise, good job on all the successful ones. 117Avenue (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Statements with common sense issues[edit]

Hi there, Rich! Category:Statements with common sense issues was correctly speedy deleted as C1, but Femto Bot recreated it. Could you reinstruct Femto Bot, and then redelete the category, please? --Bsherr (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete the progress box and you will be fine. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks Rich. --Bsherr (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 01:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 11:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 16:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 23:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 04:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC).
VernoWhitney at 22:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 23:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
CBM at 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
Kingpin13 at 12:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
Kingpin13 at 10:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 13:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
Xeno at 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 11:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
VernoWhitney at 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Xeno at 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 15:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 18:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Janet Bragg[edit]

On 7 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Janet Bragg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that aviator Janet Bragg was the first African-American woman to hold a Commercial Pilot Licence? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Note 4[edit]

The journal no longer makes those claims. Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Note 5[edit]

Dob 30 September 1686
Pob Temple Patrick, co. Antrim

Note 5[edit]

Saul Solomon

Kilcreggan, Scotland

STOP[edit]

Hey! Hi there! [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 21:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Note 3[edit]

Test Sb message cleaning. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Note to self[edit]

Revise user page. Rich Farmbrough, 11:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Project page[edit]

Extended content
Moved to the right placeRich Farmbrough, 23:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Editing restriction[edit]

As far as I can tell these edits [101] [102] [103] are a violation of your editing restriction. The thousands of other edits today with the same summary don't look particularly different. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of them are adding DEFAULTSORT in addition to cosmetic changes - I'm not quite sure if that makes those edits OK. But there are some which don't have any non-cosmetic changes, eg template redirect ({{unreferenced stub}}) and that should definitely not be happening. Rich? Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that there are so many of them, the task of adding DEFAULTSORT should be run as an approved bot job. Many other edits from today seem to be duplicating the SmackBot task of dating maintenance templates, a task that also should have been run under a bot account. But the completely trivial edits (I linked three above) are obviously inappropriate given the editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's probably true. I'd like to hear what Rich has to say. Rd232 ^talk 02:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The edits re either

* Within the AWB only changes

* Changing the sort order of some radio categories

* Setting up and initialising some new dated categories

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

All three I linked are just capitalization and redirects, which your edit restriction specifically prohibits. I'm sure you're aware that that sort of edit is what led to the restriction in the first place. These edits also violate AWB rule number 4.

You also ignored the issue where you inappropriately ran bot jobs on your main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at more edits, I noticed [104], which replaced "God is is" with "God it is". That was a manually reviewed edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Should be God is.Rich Farmbrough, 02:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Right - but you saved it anyway. That makes it look like you are not appropriately reviewing your manual edits. Given that you made over 2000 edits on this account since the beginning of 2010-11-16, that may not be surprising. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I misread it, I remember thinking at the time that "is is" might be appropriate since the para was about temporal transcendence.Rich Farmbrough, 08:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38[edit]

Template: Approved for trial (5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kumioko at 04:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot capitalising tags unnecessarily[edit]

some users have complained about smackbot captilising tags unecessary, you might want to check up the robot--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks I shut the bot down, but not fast enough. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

Running bot job under main account[edit]

Here are three more edits, since my first post today, which are actually SmackBot edits run under your main account [105] [106] [107]. It is clear from your edit history that you are actually performing the SmackBot task to date the "criticism section" template, but running it from your main account instead of the approved bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Waste of breath

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You must be great fun at parties.

Here's the XML:

      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{criticism-section}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Criticism section}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{controversy-section}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Criticism section}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{old}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>dated\ info</Find>
        <Replace>Update after</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>update-inline</Find>
        <Replace>Update after</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>update\ needed</Find>
        <Replace>Update after</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>oldfact</Find>
        <Replace>Update after</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>update-section</Find>
        <Replace>update section</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>({{Update after\|\d\d\d\d\|\d+\|\d+)\|date=[a-z]* \d+}}</Find>
        <Replace>$1}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>({{Update after\|)[a-z]* (\d\d\d\d\|\d+\|\d+)\|date=[a-z]* \d+}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>({{Update after\|)[a-z]* (\d\d\d\d\|\d+\|\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>({{Update after\|)date=[a-z]* (\d\d\d\d\|\d+\|\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>({{Update after\|)date=[a-z]* (\d\d\d\d\|\d+\|\d+)\|date=[a-z]* \d+}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>Update\ after\|2010\|October</Find>
        <Replace>Update after|2010|10</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>Update\ after\|2010\|November</Find>
        <Replace>Update after|2010|11</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>Update\ after\|2010\|September</Find>
        <Replace>Update after|2010|09</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>Update\ after\|2010\|August</Find>
        <Replace>Update after|2010|08</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=May (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|05}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=October (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|10}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{update after\|date=December (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2|12}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{update after\|date=November (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$2|11}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=September (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|09}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=August (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|08}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=July (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|07}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=March (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|03}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=June (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|06}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=January (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|01}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{update after\|date=(\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{update\ after}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|2010|11|16}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{Update after\|date=April (\d+)}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update after|$1|04}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{update}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Update|date=November 2010}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\[\[Category:Wikipedia\ articles\ in\ need\ of\ updating]]</Find>
        <Replace />
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>{{(outdated|Out of date|outofdate)\|</Find>
        <Replace>{{Out of date|</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>true</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>
      <Replacement>
        <Find>\{\{outdated\|section}}</Find>
        <Replace>{{Out of date|section|date=November 2010}}</Replace>
        <Comment />
        <IsRegex>false</IsRegex>
        <Enabled>true</Enabled>
        <Minor>false</Minor>
        <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions>
      </Replacement>

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

What in the world does that have to do with anything at all? The issue is not how to configure AWB, it's about running bot jobs under your main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

YOU said I was running SB's fixes. The above ruleset is completely different, and if you hadn't posted would have gone in the bit bucket by now. I am curious whether you just think its fun to try and find or make up rules that I am braking, or if you actually believe you are helping the project by posting these messages. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

The issue is not how you are doing it. The edits I linked have one effect: to date a maintenance template. That is exactly what SmackBot is approved to do. Running that task under your main account isn't appropriate even if you do it a different way, or with different code. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So you maintain that because I run SmackBot i am forbidden from using AWB's general fixes, while any other AWB user is permitted to do so? Rich Farmbrough, 03:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

It is obvious from your edit history that you went through a list of transclusions of Template:criticism-section today to date them and bypass the redirect. Yes, it is inappropriate for you to do that under your main account because it is SmackBot's job. You were aware that you were only dating these templates, and often making no other changes, because you reviewed every one of the edits manually. So it was apparent that you were duplicating SmackBot manualy. It would also be inappropriate for other users to do that, AWB or not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bots are under a special approval regime because they generally run unsupervised most of the time, but I don't see anything 'mutually exclusive' here in the tasks themselves. As Rich said above, it's like Rich isn't allowed to do a task just because Smackbot is authorised to do it... Shome mishtake --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the exclusivity is the point. Bot operators are not allowed to run their bots' jobs under the operators' main accounts. Separating the edits is the fundamental point of the bot accounts. Beyond approval, it means that the edits can be marked as bot edits (so they don't clog watchlists) and that it is clear to other editors that the edit was by a bot.

Bot edits are marked as bot edits because they are bot edits. Making human edits to project space from a bot account is frowned upon for these very reasons - they don't show up on watchlists. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

The deeper issue here is that Rich has a pattern of running SmackBot jobs under his main account. Given that he is under an editing restriction and under close scrutiny, it makes sense to be more diligent about following best practices, not less. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason in principal that I cannot manually run rulesets that are (or are not) designed to do approved jobs. Indeed I frequently test and develop rules this way, for the task on American CDPs approximately 10% of the task was completed in the development phase. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

(←) Yes, there is a reason not to run approved jobs from your main account - because it's a violation of our policies for bot operators. The fact that you might routinely run bot tasks from your main account is not a justification, it's the same problem I'm pointing out. The longer you continue to do these things, the more you follow in the footsteps of other bot operators who were eventually banned from running bots at all (e.g. Betacommand). — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's go back to basics here:

WP:AWB Rules #2: "Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.". From this I conclude that you should not do large volumes of AWB edits, as you have been doing recently, using your main account. You can create another bot account just for AWB.
If you want to duplicate Smackbot tasks using AWB, for testing purposes or not, that's fine: but you shouldn't then make the same mistakes in terms of violating your edit restrictions especially as each AWB edit is supposed to be manually reviewed before saving (AWB rule #1).
I refer you to the letter of the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions placed on you. Cosmetic changes are not permitted unless they are stock AWB or have demonstrable community approval. Yet you seem to think that such cosmetic changes of the type you know well don't have approval are permitted if combined with stock changes (eg here, combining template redirect replacement with hypen->em-dash). This not the case.

It's about time you figured this out, given your experience. My patience in terms of you not respecting your edit restrictions is starting to run a bit low. I've given you plenty of leeway to fix the issues, and it's about time you sorted things out so that you don't repeatedly breach them. Sort it out, or I'm going to seriously think about blocking you for violating the restrictions, something I had not seriously thought I'd have to contemplate. Rd232 ^talk 08:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[Stock AWB changes. Rich Farmbrough, 08:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Replacing {{start box}} with {{s-start}} [108] is a "stock change" in AWB? I rather doubt it, and if it's true, I certainly want to know more about it. Discussion, whose decision, etc. PS If you missed the template replacement because it was further down the diff than the presumably stock format changes, that would be a neat illustration of one reason given for the edit restriction, wouldn't it? Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind that last point, found it in the AWB redirect list. Rd232 ^talk 18:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory explanation[edit]

As a reminder, the edit restriction excludes "changes that are built-in to stock AWB". I've just tried to replicate your edit [109] using AWB, and was unable to. Now I'm not too hot on AWB, so if I've missed something please do explain, but it looks to me like this edit is only possible by programming AWB's find-and-replace function with the desired change. This clearly does not qualify as a change "built-in", any more than MediaWiki is "built-in" to PHP. Please clarify how you made the edit. Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, AWB does automatically replace {{Commonscat}} with {{Commons category}} (enable genfixes, disable skip on only genfixes). However, the edit was still in violation of the editing restriction, as you noted. In addition, if Rich is manually reviewing these edits, it not difficult for him to skip change like this, or to remove the capitalisation/whitespace changes and keep the bulk of an edit. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure? I just tried again and couldn't make it happen. Genfixes enabled, no skip options ticked. What about this, discussed above? Rd232 ^talk 14:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, make sure you have version 5.1.0.0, with the same version of WikiFunctions, and try on the Achilles page. Also, on the Nicholas Soames edit, {{Start box}} and {{End box}} are indeed replaced with {{S-start}} and {{S-end}} by AWB. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have version 5.1.0.0 (on Windows XP); I've no idea where WikiFunctions fits in or how to check version of that. What part of AWB does template redirects and who decides them? Rd232 ^talk 15:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. Fram (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. That was created in mid-September - what process is there for adding or removing redirects to this list?? I note it says on that page "You are reminded that making page edits solely for the purpose of bypassing template redirects may be considered "trivial editing", and therefore contravene the AWB rules of use. Normally you should not make page edits just to bypass redirects unless there is an agreed need to do it." Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling here to understand AWB's behaviour. Making a list from {{Commonscat}}, I've got it to replace that template redirect, and to skip if "minor genfixes" is ticked. But then it still does this [110] - apparently removing a couple of spaces makes it fine? But it has no visible effect on the output! How is that not a "minor" genfix? Anyway, ticking "skip if genfix" means it only does the replacement in combination with non-trivial changes, eg here. Rd232 ^talk 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Try ticking "skip if only whitespace" too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. It's not entirely clear to me why that option exists (as opposed to being baked in as compulsory). At least it should be ticked by default. Rd232 ^talk 18:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask Rich? Hi Rich. If you are reading this, can you explain what you did, and how to reproduce that? That would be very good, and confirming suggested professionality. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained white-space can be a critical change, for example {{Citation needed|date=July2010}} fails, whereas {{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} is epic. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Whitespace affecting a template parameter like that is very different from bits of trailing whitespace having no visible effect on the output. AWB should be able to distinguish the two - and if it can't, then the AWB user can. Rd232 ^talk 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, exactly. Rich Farmbrough, 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

That's why it's not hard-wired. Rich Farmbrough, 22:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

And trailing white-space can affect the output. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

I didn't say it couldn't, though very often it won't - and where it doesn't, it's an edit that neither should be made on its own, nor justifies making any other edits that don't affect output. Rd232 ^talk 22:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec/2) Apart from Rd232's reaction here, Rich, you did not answer my Q. It was "what" did you do, and "how". Your reaction is a suggestion of "why". QE not D. -DePiep (talk)

That's because I'm replying to Rd232 not you. Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

You haven't actually replied to the issue of why you made that edit. Nor have you replied substantively to the comments I made below. Yes, some issues about AWB behaviour have been clarified, but not your decision-making. Rd232 ^talk 22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 14:12. (first post in this sub-thread): "Please clarify how you made the edit."
Rd232, 22:38. "You haven't actually replied to the issue of why you made that edit." -- so no how, why (is your reply to Rd232?). -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification from AWB's side: Skip if only whitespace is changed — Skips page if only tabs/spaces/newlines have changed (this ~~doesn't~~ include spacing changed by Find & Replace). -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DaPiep, kindly go and do something useful. Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Rich, you mean to say reading your talkpage carefully is not useful? Then why read at all? -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if you stopped both reading it and writing to it. Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Nah Rich! Why talk like that? After all that I have done for you! Just reading you, and pointing out contradictions and so. I really think someone should take care of you somehow, somewhere. Somehow. OK, maybe not me this thread anymore. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

In view of the minor nature of the block evasion mentioned above [111] (one laconic comment to a Wikipedia Signpost talk page), I'm not going to extend the block. Instead, I will take it into account if another block is necessary for not complying with the edit restrictions, so that it will be 72 hours instead of 48. Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that bot operators are allowed to operate their bots when their main account is blocked either, so probably best in the future to stop using FemtoBot while this account is blocked as well (similarly, if Smackbot would not have been blocked now, you would still not have been allowed to run it while your main account is blocked). Fram (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so who would this help? Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

When you make an error while running your bot, you would be unable to revert or correct it with your main account while being blocked. Fram (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No big deal I could be unblocked to deal with the problem. Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for this perfect explanation of why you shouldn't run your bots while being blocked... Fram (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

March NNN[edit]

Hi Rich. Can you please apply special scrutiny when delinking "March NNN", as you did here. Most instances of "March NNN" are likely to be racing car designations, not date fragments. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I skipped a lot of those, but I'll try to avoid any more. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok now skip all of these, seems pragmatically sound. Rich Farmbrough, 09:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Note this and march 1968 on dating page... Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

DoneRich Farmbrough, 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks...[edit]

...for a very welcome invitation. Do let me know how I can contribute, or...prevent de-tributing. --Bsherr (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 36[edit]

Template: Trial complete.. *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 22:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 10:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 16:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 18:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 09:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 09:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Waitwaitwait...[edit]

...you have a wikiproject for bacon?

Isn't that a bit...obsessive? HalfShadow 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, or should I say ...Ham... It's a small WikiProject. Barely a few rashers really. See the article in the WP:Signpost. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Blocked 24 hours[edit]

So after the discussion above you not only don't bother to reply, but continue to use AWB on your main account, and to do unvarnished template redirect replacements using AWB, which is an edit you know full well is in violation of your edit restrictions, and an edit which you should be manually reviewing. [112] Sorry, but enough is enough. If I have to block you for you to get the message that these edit restrictions are more than mere blather, so be it. At least it'll give you time to sort out your Smackbot and AWB programming so that the restrictions are respected. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

On a not quite entirely unrelated note, Femtobot just threw a wobbly and replaced your entire talk page with its update [113]. Rd232 ^talk 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a wise move. </humour> Rich Farmbrough, 08:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Stock change. And there is continuous improvement, which has proved very successful. The step-change required has, on the contrary caused many problems, which is the usual result of Tampering. Rich Farmbrough, 08:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Stock change, yes, but your editing restriction states "(see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done)". My emphasis: what "substantive edit" is being done in that edit? You did the same e.g. here. Apart from that; this is replacing an error (point between refs) with another error (ending sentence with ",."). Fram (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fram, nice to see you, did you bring me a file in a cake? Rich Farmbrough, 08:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Are you evading your block or is someone trying to give that impression? [114] Fram (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

he also did something unconstructive to his own talkpage, i thought it was an IP vandalising so I reverted--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's no bother, I just got logged out. Rich Farmbrough, 10:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Well, when your blocked you don't log out and continue editting, thats evading your ban, you went as an IP and editted a talk page, you mustn't do that wait untl your block is over or appeal for an unblock--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightenment. Rich Farmbrough, 10:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Seriously, Rich? Are you saying that you didn't realize that? —David Levy 10:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, just trying to be polite. Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Okay, so you intentionally evaded the block. —David Levy 10:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Er no, I made an edit I shouldn't have. Rich Farmbrough, 11:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

What distinction are you drawing? —David Levy 11:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unintentionally. Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Please elaborate. Did you somehow forget that your account was blocked? —David Levy 11:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ever moved from a manual to an automatic or vice versa? It's exactly like that, I've hit edit maybe a dozen times this morning. It's not exactly "forgetting", it's just automatic behaviour. Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

I'll take your word for it, Rich. Note that it would have been helpful if you'd immediately provided such an explanation instead of your 10:22 and 10:29 responses. —David Levy 13:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rich, have you modified your AWB settings to prevent changes which only change casing, only change white space, (I believe this is as simply as checking two check boxes on the form - if those don't work, as I've said before I'm happy to lend any coding assistance that I can, or you could ask the AWB developers) or only change a template to a redirect? (in the case of template redirects, except those which are built into AWB and other substantive changes are being made at the same time). This is intended as a direct question, and I would appreciate a direct response. </ec> So why were you signed out at the time? That doesn't seem like "automatic" behaviour to me. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rich, have you modified your AWB settings

I have a couple of hundred AMB settings files, I certainly have not modified all or even most of them. Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

to prevent changes which only change casing, only change white space, (I believe this is as simply as checking two check boxes on the form - if those don't work, as I've said before I'm happy to lend any coding assistance that I can, or you could ask the AWB developers)

Yes by and large, I use those check boxes, sometime it's not appropriate "May1990" => "May 1990" for example.Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

or only change a template to a redirect? (in the case of template redirects, except those which are built into AWB and other substantive changes are being made at the same time).

Done for SmackBot some time ago. Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

I appreciate that it's difficult to change your settings, having so many, and this is a task which will take time. Also, thanks for modifying SmackBot to prevent the bypassing of template redirects. However, as I see it, what you need to do is pay more attention to your own (apparently semi-automated) edits when using AWB, and remove any rules which violate the restriction before making them (but after seeing them pop-up in AWB's proposed edit). If you're reading the edit you're making properly, it should be no more difficult then saving to skip edits such as the ones mentioned above on your talk page (those which only make cosmetic changes). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but I have years of looking at diffs for errors, rather than ensuring a specific change is made. Not saying this is an excuse, it's just how the human mind works. Anyway I don't know I'll be bothering with AWB much more. Rich Farmbrough, 00:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

If you set it up right, AWB should skip edits for you that you shouldn't save. But maybe it's better for careful Smackbot programming to handle this anyway. Rd232 ^talk 11:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They're pretty much synonymous, but we are talking about manual (AWB) edits here anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Handling parser limitations[edit]

18-Nov-2010: Well, I am getting hints, from everyone, about the bad news with the limited parser functions, but "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade" or "parser-ade" (parser-aid). Due to concerns about moving templates to other wikis, we need to assume the worst-case, where many people will have dinky, limited versions of MediaWiki. We can quickly write work-around templates, because we finally know the performance limits, of how the 40-nest restriction is fatal (rather than some murky "Don't worry about performance"). The use of too many nested if-elses will cause a template to die, some day soon, when combined with other complex templates. For example, the current {{Str_len}} template (which counts length by checking 100s, 10s and ones) is using enough if-elses to devour 9-nest levels of the 40-nest limit. I am creating a {{Strlen_small}}, by using older, simpler algorithms, which will only use 3-nest levels (rather than 9). I created one of the character templates to handle all the accented characters in foreign languages. Then, we can consider which infoboxes (and such) need to use optimized utility templates to avoid the 40-nest limit. Also, by listing template variations (under each "See also"), then casual users will be alerted that they might need to use a streamlined, more efficient version of a utility template. Meanwhile, if people keep discussing the primitive limits of MediaWiki, then eventually, the concerns might reach a "critical mass" where better parser-function sets become standard. I suspect that some people wanted to show each string-function "what-links-here" as proof that "80,000 articles" will use such functions if available. So, progress can be made, on many different fronts, to provide interim solutions, while also educating people about better parser-function sets in the next releases. The important strategy is to have multiple paths of success, like usernames on different wikis, so that progress can be made in a wide range of areas, when thwarted along some paths. I can take each better template to become a similar one on German Wikipedia, as a Vorlage:Strlen_klein, so that other-language Wikipedias can propagate those templates based on their knowledge of German WP. There are many different avenues to make improvements with these issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I re-opened the bug. Rich Farmbrough, 08:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

some one is hungry for bacon today[edit]

Hello, i just noticed you editted loads of bacon related articles today, which was amusing, are you trying to tell us something or are you just erm hungry XD! any ways happy editting--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes bacony day. Off to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stamford now. Rich Farmbrough, 11:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

A WikiProject for a town of 20,000? Really? Why not just join Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire? Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

maybe because they don't have bacon? :P --Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no "Stamford pie", "Stamford pudding", "Stamford bacon" but there should be! Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

It had Lincolnshire as a parent project. Stamford is culturally closer to Rutland and North-East Northhants, historically closer to Cambridgeshire, feudally to various places including Durham, economically a near suburb of Peterborough and geographically closer the at least four other county towns than to its own. It was the home of, or important to, many historical figures. It has a James Challis like history of almost being one of the ancient university towns, being the seat of parliament, but not of government, almost being a major railway junction and works, and so forth. It has an outstanding wealth of vernacular stone buildings, was the site of an Eleanor Cross, is the burial place of a number of notables, has one of the last assisted places schemes in the country, the oldest newspaper and is on the doorstep of the Burleigh Estate with all that entails in terms of royal history. With proper research there is scope for several hundred significant articles within the purview of the project. Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Well, OK. I ask because I see a lot of inactive wikiprojects on small subjects. But if you think it'll be more useful than working within an existing project (maybe higher level than Lincolnshire if that doesn't suit), fine. Rd232 ^talk 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Geographic location[edit]

Please revert your last edit to {{Geographic location}}. The addition of {{PAGENAME}} causes the geobox to be preceded with the pagename, which is totally pointless (in most cases it's the same as the centre label anyway) and disruptive to formatting. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 14:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Thank you. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 19:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37[edit]

Template: Trial complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 00:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

OK, let's try and wrap up some recommendations:

Don't use AWB on your main account. Use a different one, perhaps specifically for AWB. cf AWB rule 2.
Every AWB edit is supposed to be manually reviewed (AWB rule 1). Don't forget that.
AWB "stock changes" are permitted by the edit restrictions, including template redirects listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. But as that page itself notes, and as the edit restrictions emphasise, even those stock changes should not be made on their own, without any substantive changes to the page. AWB has settings to ensure that this doesn't happen, as discussed above - so use them. But in addition, see point 2.

On a related issue, it's not clear to me how redirects get into the AWB list. There is an unsatisfactory discussion here. Anyone? PS It would be good to see Smackbot up and running again, if you can sort out the coding to ensure it behaves in a manner consistent with the editing restriction. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding point 1: any such account should be clearly linked from (and to) your user page. You fairly recently used an account for a number of DNB edits after similar complaints, but as far as I can tell, this account was never clearly linked to your main account. To avoid that people would conclude that you use an alternate account to circumvent your editing restrictions, a clear connection between the two accounts must be available. Fram (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That shouldn't need saying. Rd232 ^talk 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sofixt Fram. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

It is your responsibility to manage alternate accounts in accordance with policy, no-one else's. Rd232 ^talk 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK compare the effort of typing the above with typing, on the user page, "This is an alternative account of Rich Farmbrough for AWB edits". Fram would rather complain here than fix the problem. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT much? I put my comment in bold. Read it again. Rd232 ^talk 09:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure shouting always helps. If it's my responsibility why does Fram take it upon themselves? Rich Farmbrough, 09:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

I wasn't shouting, it's just a shortcut, which is usually in caps. You shouldn't need reminding, but if you do, don't blame the messenger. Rd232 ^talk 11:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the excessive use of bolding. There's not an issue, that account has only edited my userspace. The name makes it clear it's an alternate account. It was busybodies screaming their heads of that caused me to create it in the first place. Rich Farmbrough, 11:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Bolding is not shouting, it's emphasis - and apparently even that degree of emphasis didn't get through to you! Please see the relevant policy at Wikipedia:SOCK#Alternative_account_notification, and please stop being dismissive of others ("busybodies" indeed!). Accounts should be linked, and name alone is not enough. Rd232 ^talk 13:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

E pur si muove... Rich Farmbrough, 14:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Ah yes, what a clever and appropriate response. Being reminded of Wikipedia alternate account policy is totally the same thing as being tortured to declare that the Sun goes round the Earth, but then dissenting sotto voce. Martyr complex much? Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You miss my point entirely. Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Fine - so what was it? Why so cryptic? Rd232 ^talk 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That they are busybodies, whether you call them that or not. Rich Farmbrough, 14:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Additional: if you have any issues when you start editing with AWB or programming Smackbot, then ask me or the community. Describe what you want to do, or do a single edit for demonstration purposes, and ask. Don't go off doing thousands of edits, mixing in ones which are near the border of the editing restrictions. Rd232 ^talk 22:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, please don't defend my stalkers. Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

I'm starting to have issues with your attitude. You haven't engaged with this issue anything like as much as you could have done, and your last couple of remarks quite unhelpful - combined with a bit of needless block evasion. My response to your entirely inappropriate remark to Fram almost involved a wet fish; and since she's been involved with this issue for some time, a dismissive "stalker" is unhelpful. Nor was I defending her. Please, take a step back and consider that we all have the same objective, which is getting you back to making lots of improvements to Wikipedia - minus edits that don't have consensus, per your edit restrictions and AWB rules. Rd232 ^talk 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have spent hours explaining stuff to Fram. It's time wasted as far as I can see. The purpose seems to be to come here and "point out my mistakes and help me improve". Very worthy no doubt, but after 9 weeks it's getting tiring - especially with people who have a limited command of English and less of systems. I am not here for the amusement of others, however that manifests itself. Those that have constructive criticism, requests for help, queries, genuine intelligent advice or just want to chat - broadly about the project, are welcome here. Any others can kindly go elsewhere for their fun. I am very patient especially with those who mean to be helpful, but frankly it is wearing a bit thin. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes, blaming others for the issues you're not discussing enough with me is wearing a bit thin. Please respond to my conclusions above. Rd232 ^talk 09:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Ragsdale[edit]

Hi Rich Farmbrough. You worked on Jeff Ragsdale's page at one time. Ragsdale is currently being harassed by IP number 71.190.77.101. This person, whom we have identified through correct legal means, is a fellow actor and he started his attack on Ragsdale by submitting a fake resume regarding Ragsdale on craigslist. Then said person started a commentary regarding Jeff Ragsdale's Wikipedia "notability". This whole issue has now snowballed into a "notability" issue on Wikipedia because of IP number 71.190.77.101's false claims regarding Ragsdale. My question to you is can you leave a message on Theda's page about your sentiments regarding Ragsdale's notability? Theda has since reinserted the notability tag on Ragsdale's Wikipedia page. Ragsdale is clearly a notable person. One would just have to look at the rich sources, and all of his television and film credits, as well as his international activism. Or could you possibly point me in other directions? Richard Peterson 11-20-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardPeterson44 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Third time's a charm?[edit]

Any reason why you have yet again restarted your faulty script to create redirects from the capitalized words on articles that don't match the article title? You have for the third time created the redirect Lucius Caelius to Lactantius. You also created the redirect from Designations to Star designation, which is only one of the many possible targets (I changed it to a redirect to Designation instead). The fact that this kind of redirect creation is problematic has been shown to you before, so I wonder why you started it again. And wheren't you just blocked for making this kind of edits? It's not as if it is a one-off error, there is also this one... Fram (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It needs work so I was working in it. Yes I am aware, thank you for redirecting that I was going to create a dab page. Like I said with the best will in the world there's going to be a few. I notice you are taking over SmackBot's task. Fun for you. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Someone has to do it I guess since the bot isn't allowed to run for more than a couple hours at a time. That should help at least a dozen editors keep their edit counts up so a couple of insignificant edits can be saved. --Kumioko (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You can test things without saving them, you know. And if you want to continue this, it may be smarter to include less violations of your editing restrictions. Fram (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Defaultsort" differing trivially from article title[edit]

What is the intention of edits like this one? It does nothing to affect the article's position in the category listing for either of the categories it is in. Gurch (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does:

Legal age
Legal death
Legal district
Legal doublet
Legal hold
Legal liability
Legal nullity
Legal opinion
Legal Project Management
Legal recourse
Legal terrorism
Legal transplant

would be

Legal age
Legal death
Legal district
Legal doublet
Legal liability
Legal nullity
Legal opinion
Legal Project Management
Legal recourse
Legal terrorism
Legal transplant
Legal hold

regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

...only because you and other bots have been inserting pointless capitalized defaultsorts on the other articles. If none of them had one, they would sort correctly. Gurch (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, in the above example they would sort:

Legal Project Management
Legal age
Legal death
Legal district
Legal doublet
Legal hold
Legal liability
Legal nullity
Legal opinion
Legal recourse
Legal terrorism
Legal transplant

Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Can't that be fixed by putting {{DEFAULTSORT:Legal project management}} on Legal Project Management, though? That only adds one useless defaultsort instead of 11 of them. Gurch (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and indeed that is an excellent solution, and one I would favour ab initio (it is simpler - although not necessarily using less DEFAULTSORTs across the whole). Problem is almost all the people articles already have a sort that uses extreme title case. There is a Bugzilla request that would allow us to make the wiki case-insensitive, but it is years old - that would be the ideal "next step", solving almost all category sorting problems. Rich Farmbrough, 14:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Can't you use title case for biographies and lower case for everything else? Biographies are easily machine-identifiable because they either have Category:Living people or a death-related category. Gurch (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes if we had only categories that contained people or non-people. (Of course there are also fictional people, and the likes of Nicolas Bourbaki - and articles about eponymous bands which are also about the person.) Rich Farmbrough, 14:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Considering that most people defaultsorts have a "," after the first word (Locke, John), they sort different from every non-person "Locke" article anyway, so the argument that uppercase defaultsorts are needed because biographies have them is not very convincing. Fram (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Defaultsort is very useful and better keep it as we do it till now. A good idea would be a bot to do it in all pages in fact. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There are BRFA's to deal with the problem areas - although I reiterate a good solution to the Bugzilla item that would allow case-insensitive sorting would make almost all of this go away overnight. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes I'm aware of that, and it shows that things weren't completely thought through when the scheme for people was established. Enough people don't sort with a comma, thousands at least - and we have also hundreds of thousands of articles that would need a DEFAULTSORT under a ucfirst regime that don't now. However if you can get consensus to change to ucfirst, I'm all for it, as it would be an improvement longer term. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Since all biographical defaultsorts have a comma at the end of the name (if the title has multiple words, and if it doesn't it doesn't need one) they automatically come after any other multi-word title beginning with the subject's surname, because "," comes after " ". Changing the category sorting to be case-insensitive wouldn't change that. So even in a category that mixes people and non-people, I don't see the value in insisting on title-case defaultsorts for every page. The person's entry would appear in the category below any titles that had the subject's surname as a first name, but above any titles that started with some substring of the subject's surname. No matter what case was used for the defaultsorts in non-biographical articles, this wouldn't change. The only reason it would change is if there was a non-biographical title (or defaultsort for a non-biographical article) that used "foo, bar" syntax *and* didn't capitalize "bar". I'm not aware any such pages even exist. This seems like an excuse to make meaningless edits to hundreds of thousands of articles for no reason. Gurch (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

{DEFAULTSORT:Alfred The Great} has no comma. There are thousands like that, probably tens of thousands (yes mo<style>span.GerbrantEditRegexReplaceHit{font-weight:bold;background:lightsteelblue}span.GerbrantEditRegexReplaceHitOff{font-weight:bold;background:mistyrose}span.GerbrantEditRegexReplaceMaskFailed{font-weight:normal;color:red}</style>re than 10,000 I can give rough figures later^{[def 1]}), once we include certain Muslim names (which have up to 5 saliant parts, not necessarily including a family name) and names from the Far East. Moreover there are other places where the personal name takes capitals apart form after spaces, namely after ' and - . Even if the name has a "bar, foo" defaultsort id may be that bar = "Baz Quok". As form non-bio articles with a "'" in their sort order, there are probably more than 30,000 of them - the American place names for starters. Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

^ C. 30,000 members of categories with "birth" "death" or "living" in the name have a DEFAULTSORT with no comma, although many of these should have a DEFAULTSORT with a comma by the current methodolgy

"This seems like an excuse to make meaningless edits to hundreds of thousands of articles for no reason. " If you believe that, then please help prevent these edits by going and voting for the T2164 - although it already has the highest vote of any open bug. Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

The developers don't pay any attention to bug votes, it's just a feature of Bugzilla that was never turned off.

Bug 164 asks for more than just case insensitivity of category sort keys. It asks for the ability to set arbitrary, locale-sensitive, sort orders. This requires, as the bug explains, both a database schema change and changes to the underlying database engine (MySQL) to support such locale-sensitive sorts (since the sorting of category contents is done by the database itself).

All this adding of title-cased sort keys could be done away with much more simply: just make the category sort key case-insensitive. This is easily done with the existing schema and database engine, by transforming all category sort keys to either all uppercase or all lowercase (it doesn't matter) before storing them. That way, no matter what the case of the article title (or the defaultsort, or category sort key if explicitly specified), "A" and "a" would always sort before "B" and "b" which would always sort before "C" and "c" and so forth.

You'd still have the issue of non-English character sets sorting in completely the wrong order (which is what bug 164 wants to fix). But it would get rid of the superfluous defaultsorts. At the same time, you wouldn't lose any functionality -- the only thing you wouldn't be able to do is force a title to sort somewhere else based on case alone, but if you want really want to make something sort before/after everything else despite all alphabetical indication to the contrary you can just put a "!" in the sort key or something. Gurch (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. There are also a massive number of diacritics in article titles. And if applying a toupper or tolower is trivial (toupper or ucfirst(tolower) would be preferred so that the section heads are still capitals) dealing with these is hardly complex.

On the matter of votes, the voting system was changed from numeric to tick-box (or from 0-1000 to 0-1 if you prefer) some years ago so it's not been left on by accident, though maybe it has been ignored more than many of us would like. Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Edit restriction Nov 22[edit]

This edit from today [115] is a violation of your editing restriction.

Never fear I reverted that change, so everyone will be happy. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

Also, you appear to be inappropriately running SmackBot's "add references section" job on AWB under your main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We had this conversation before. Maybe you forgot RS232 confirmed this would not be a problem. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
- No, I don't remember that. Actually, now that I realize that SmackBot is blocked, it's even more clear that it's inappropriate – it appears you are running SmackBot jobs on your main account to evade the block on the bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  - Nonsense and piffle. On so many levels. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
    - As I was saying the pattern here resembles more and more that of other bot operators who were eventually banned from editing bots. My hope if to bring you back onto community best practices before that happens. But all I can do it point out the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This edit [116] is also quite odd. You added a reflist tag, but there are no footnotes. Your edit summary claimed to be moving a portal tag, but you didn't. If you're manually checking these, make sure the edit summary matches the actual edit. Otherwise, it has the appearance that you didn't actually check the edit at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked SmackBot, presuming that you now understand what needs to be done to respect the edit restrictions. Please edit with appropriate caution in terms of testing and reviewing etc. Rd232 ^talk 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ty. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

Nomination of Lists of wind turbines in Denmark for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Lists of wind turbines in Denmark, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of wind turbines in Denmark until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 04:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of wind turbines in Denmark (1990-1999)‎[edit]

The article List of wind turbines in Denmark (1990-1999)‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Handschuh-^{talk to me} 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of wind turbines in Denmark (2000-2009)[edit]

The article List of wind turbines in Denmark (2000-2009) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ‎List of wind turbines in Denmark (1978-1989)[edit]

The article ‎List of wind turbines in Denmark (1978-1989) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Handschuh-^{talk to me} 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of wind turbines in Denmark (2010-2019)‎[edit]

The article List of wind turbines in Denmark (2010-2019)‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Handschuh-^{talk to me} 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have contested all of these prods. For this particular list, which is empty, I have proposed it be merged back to the main list page. LadyofShalott 18:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

Turkey Bacon[edit]

I don't think your addition of a Bacon Portal tag on this page is correct. The first line of the Bacon Portal reads Bacon is a cured meat prepared from a pig and, obviously, Turkey Bacon doesn't meet that criteria. It's also an inferior product to 'real' bacon and I think the addition of your Portal imbues it with undeserved kudos Obscurasky (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe you are correct. We should create a subsidiary inferior portal called the "Ersatz bacon" portal, maybe. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

You seem to agree with me, so I've now removed the tag. Obscurasky (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm fine with giving it the chop, I had no steak in it remaining. Rich Farmbrough, 09:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

Len Garrison achievements are recognised as he was made one of the 100 Great Black Britons Igbo (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Lagosman

I declare you one of the 100 Great Wikipedians. Your Wikipedianess has been acknowledged by .. me. That's what the person who originally put the tag in was asking. If someone gets an Oscer their "Greatness" has been acknowledged by "the Academy" (or they give great party bags), if someone it knighted they have been acknowledged by HRH in theory, by the government of the day in practice etc. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Persondata[edit]

Can you please use capital letters when adding persondata? I know it doesn't make any difference but it's better to have everything in the same style. I suggest you use the built-in AWB feature instead of using a modified one. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and the normal style for en:wp is lowercase for tempalte paramters! Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Bacon vodka[edit]

I have twice reverted a faulty edit of yours to this article. Please can you check your code and, if en edit is reverted, do not make the same edit again? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a duplicate ref. I removed it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

TagUpdater in AWB[edit]

Two updates they might be interesting for you:

TagUpdater: first word to first character uppercase in date field rev 7417
TagUpdater: removes day in International date in |date= rev 7419

-- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Joel P. Wyler[edit]

Hi Rich, I don't think this edit was useful - the whole article content had previously been removed and replaced by the {{copyviocore}} template which says, amongst other things, "Do not edit this page until an administrator or an OTRS agent has resolved this issue.". As it was, the page turned up in the Category:Stubs for stub-sorting, though I had to look at a past version of the page to sort it... and then realised how daft it all was and reverted your changes instead! So whether by hand or by bot, perhaps you could avoid adding tags to articles in this state? Thanks. PamD (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm well by bot should be safe, I changed the insertion method of copyvio to include a {{nobots}} template some time ago. But the BLP_prod should have been removed. Rich Farmbrough, 10:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

What is the point...[edit]

...of edits like this? LadyofShalott 01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a layout issue. The portal tag is floated right, therefore should be before the bulleted list. Rich Farmbrough, 10:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

The old version looked ugly, like this. It might seem from the wikitext that it shouldn't make any layout difference, but it does. Rd232 ^talk 10:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Point taken. LadyofShalott 20:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Mário João[edit]

Hello! Do you know the full name of this Portuguese football player? Many sources affirm Mário Rodrigues João, while other ones state only Mário João. If you know something more, plese, write me here. --VAN ZANT (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, I would have thought that if reliable sources give a middle name it is likely to be correct. Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

Translate Bot[edit]

I think the name says it all, but what does Translate Bot do? And the article list? Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In due course it will <ahem> translate between the various language projects, flawlessly. <ahem> The article list is just something to start on. I expect the first successful translation to take several months after I start working on it, and I don't necessarily expect the second one to be much faster. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

Error introduced at this edit. - Station1 (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

Cleaning up your own Smackbot edits[edit]

When you are cleaning up the Smackbot errors of inserting Currentmonth into articles, perhaps it is easier if you at the same time also clean up the CurrentDay that Smackbot inserted in the same edits at the same position? [117],[118], ... Fram (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's currentmonthno, that task is long complete, currentday is a mediawiki bug,but it's sorted for recent edits (both of them). Rich Farmbrough, 14:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

CFD notice[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 27; your Category:Main page is up for merging. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Error introduced by SmackBot[edit]

SmackBot recently made a load of fixes to the article Borders of the oceans - diff here [119]. Whilst most things it did were valid, one change introduced an error - the third change shown in the diff.
The article contains some quotes with explanatory text given in square brackets. One of these square bracketed sections contains a wikilink at the end. Therefore in the code it ends with three ]'s. SmackBot removed one of these brackets, presumably because three brackets usually indicate an error. (Interestingly, other three-bracket groups in the article weren't amended by SmackBot.)
Is this something that can be amended in the Bot's code, or do you think that it will be such a rare occurrence that it's not worth fixing? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well the first one is "nowiki-ed" so it's hard to say whether this is something that should change - its core AWB "General Fixes". I would be inclined to change the article in this case - which I have fdone, no-wiki-ing the closing "]". Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

I guess it is an AWB error but the correct syntax in the text would be to have both brackets in nowiki. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the correct thing would be for the software to interpret [[[]]] "correctly" - i.e. as a bracketed wikilink.. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

Recent changes list[edit]

Would you put WP:MED on the list for the recent changes page? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Recent_changes

Rich Farmbrough, 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot smackdown[edit]

FYI, I've added SmackBot and Yobot's current edit war at Human hair growth to WP:LAME#Bot vs bot. —Angr (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Please stop the automated redirect creation[edit]

Apart from the outright errors, noted a number of times before, and now again shown with the Centerville/Centreville redirect which I speedy deleted as a R2 implausibe redirect, you also create a fair number of redirects which should be disambiguations instead. looking only at the last ten Township redirects you created, Woodward to Swatara, four of them should not have been a redirect but instead a disambiguation: Woodbury Township, Windham Township, Wilmington Township and Todd Township. Fram (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

? Those are new redirects to existing disambiguation pages. You mean the existing page should be moved to the new redirect page? Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, e.g. Woodbuy Township now is a redirect to Woodbury Township, Pennsylvania, but there is also Woodbury Township, Cumberland County, Illinois. Windham Township is a redirect to Windham Township, Pennsylvania, even though we also have Windham Township, Ontario and Windham Township, Portage County, Ohio (the latter has more inhabitants than the two Pennsylvania ones combined). These Township redirects should be proper disambiguations between all townships with the same name, not redirects to the one page that happens to have X Township as a bolded term in the lead. Fram (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, yes. Rd232 ^talk 12:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Woodbury Township fixed. Will have a go at the others soon, taking the line of point 1 below. Is there a list of similar problems? Mind you, USA placenames are pretty uninteresting so I'm not saying I'll fix a lot of them! PamD (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And Windham Township. PamD (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And Todd and Wilmington. I wish people who create pages would have the wit to create appropriate dabs or redirects when they start off, so we wouldn't be having to mop up after them! PamD (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

True - and true in an interesting way. 3 of these 4 cases were created at 21.55 on 28 October 2002, the other a few minutes earlier. So the problem here originates with a mass creation which didn't match the current practice (it was a long time ago...) that they should have been created at the page Rich recently created, not with the ", Pennsylvania" suffix. Rd232 ^talk 10:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have also converted five of them into disambiguations, there are still plenty left to do though... Fram (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

These need to be promoted to DAB pages, then Fram. I was aware that some of them probably would, a redirect is still better than no page at all. ( I often think of a redirect as equivalent to a DAB page with one entry./) Perhaps you would like to look at doing that? If you follow my talk page as closely as you seem you will know it is something on my mind. Rich Farmbrough, 14:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC).

No, a redirect is not better than nothing at all, it promotes for entirely illogical reasons one target over the other ones, where no redirect at all would lead to the search page where every possible target should be listed. I am not going to check and clean up the hundreds of redirects you create. You create a mess, you are responsible for cleaning it up, and you are even more responsible for not continuing the same behaviour and type of edits after the problems have been pointed out to you repeatedly. (And with "cleaning up" things, I don't mean the kind of edit you have done here with the intent of removing it from your automated script list...). There are way too many of those, like Cass Township, which now links to two townships in Pennsylvania, and ignores the 4 in Iowa, 8 in Indiana, 3 in Ohio and 1 in Illinois. Fram (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that (a) for these cases a redirect is certainly not better than nothing (b) that redirects of this type should not be created automatically. Each one needs checking to see if a dab page is needed. Finally, doesn't mass creation need a BRFA? Was there one here? Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I would not have done this particular change I think its good to have these redirects, but the other similar redirects you mention appearing in the search need to be added to the DAB pages. Perhaps that is something that Rich can or has planned to do. Yes you can search for something but your comment assumes that result is in the first 20 occurrences and often times I find what I need on page 12 or something, not page one. We are talking about making things easier for users, not us necessarily so having all the variations of X on one page with all the others makes it easier than scrolling though 20+ pages of search results. Also, I have heard both of you mention multiple times on this very page that redirects are good and there is no need to change them or worry about them but now all of a sudden redirects are bad because he has created a few? Seems kinda like we are sliding the rules to meet our needs at the moment to me. Also, no, there is no need for BRFA for creation, depending on the thing being created. Using AWB I have "created" about 300 talk pages in the last month for US related articles that had blank talk pages and didn't have any banners. I understand that Rich is on the skyline for doing some unnecessary changes but is the intention to scrutinize every edit he makes, every day that he makes one. Surely there are better things to do than to worry about 1 user performing some insignificant edits. If the edit is insignificant is continually looking for them also an insignificant contribution. Feel free to look through mine and see if I have made some or if you have suggestions for how I can improve on the edits that I have made. I only made about 140 edits today so far but I am sure if you look through them you'll find 1 or 2 that I missed or need to improve. Cheers! --Kumioko (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

RS: You say each one needs checking. Do you think most dabs/redirects are checked like that? You are making unwarranted quality control assumptions that do not fit in with the Wiki-way of doing things. Ones choice with a problem is:

Fix the problem.
Wait for someone else to fix it.
Ask for help.
Moan.

All have their upsides and down-sides - which vary for different people. I find number 4 an unappealing choice,not only for myself bout for others, and tend to to 1 and 2 - I should probably do 3instead of 2. That's how I am. Fram enjoys moaning - maybe "spotting" a dubious redirect makes them feel good and superior I don't know. But I wish they would go and do something else - anything else - it's not an attitude compatible with my character. Dr Bloefeld does a mixture of 1 & 3 that works very well. Similarly Kumikomo, Mag and a whole bunch of others. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC).

A redirect is better, Fram. It takes you to a page and if it's the wrong one you can then create the DAB page, or see the layout for the title if you are a lazy leecher. As usual you presume technical knowledge that you do not posses. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC).

(reply to Kumioko) I don't think you have really understood the problem when you say that "I think its good to have these redirects, but the other similar redirects you mention appearing in the search need to be added to the DAB pages." The DAB pages have to be created instead of the redirects, the redirects don't point to incomplete disambiguations but to incorrect ones (i.e. disambiguations for one state only, instead of general ones). And could you please provide some diffs for rd232 or me sliding the rules? I don't think that the context of such earlier comments, if any, will turn out to be the same as here.

As or scrutinizing someone's edits: if someone has had enough problematic edits to warrant an edit restriction, it is not unusual to check his edits. And if I notice on my watchlist that a page I have already deleted twice as an incorrectly created redirect is created yet again, despite having alerted Rich Farmbrough to this problem, then it is only logical that I check whether this is the only problematic edit or not. The current problem is not with insignificant edits, but with incorrect ones. The earlier problem was indeed with insignificant edits, which light up many watchlists and fill up the recent changes pages for no good reason at all.

Finally, it is not about one or two mistakes, it is about many mistakes, time after time, and the refusal to take them serious or to do something about them, with more energy spent on discussing the messenger than on focusing on the message. Fram (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Rich Farmbrough: I have repeatedly tried to fix the problem at the source, i.e. stop the creation of such incorrect redirects (either those that are truly improbable, and get speedy deleted, or those that should be disambiguations instead of redirects). Sadly, the source of the problems ignores this, and prefers discussing me instead of the edits, mixing in some unwarrented personal attacks to boot. I'll continue to mention each and every recurring problem with your automated, semi-automated and script-based edits, it's up to you if you correct the errors (both after you created them, and preventing the further creation of more similar problems) or ignore them, but the consequences of this are your problem as well. Fram (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes about eight weeks ago I found time donate to the project to do some serious clean-up, and made a lot of minor improvements - including a typo fixing task I have now given up on through two months of incessant, obsessive surveillance and criticism, from a small handful of people, that has thankfully now been reduced to 1. I come on WP mainly to use it, at the moment, but there's always the orange bar flashing. However that is easily fixed by logging off when I'm not editing, something I have never felt the need to deliberately before. <shrug> Times change I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC).

Once again, you're blaming others for the evident need for someone to look over your shoulder and check your work (which of course shouldn't be necessary, but if it is, partly due to the complexity and volume of the totality of what you're doing, then at least accept it with good grace). It ain't pretty. Rd232 ^talk 21:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

<STATSUS> LOGGED OFF </STATUS>

Since it was questioned by Kumioko, and Rich ignored the issue, see Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Mass_article_creation. There is no specific exception for redirects, but (Kumioko) it applies to articles not talk pages so your task sounds exempt. Rich: I presume "RS" is directed at me (Rd232). First, creation of redirects which may plausibly involve a need for disambiguation should involve checking for that, and anyone creating such redirects on a substantial scale without checking would be asked to do that whether they submitted the edit using AWB or a carrier pigeon. Please stop taking the attitude that whatever you're doing is unimprovable and that any resulting problems should be cleaned up by people who find them. You're experienced enough to know better, and I find it increasingly bizarre that you find making minor course corrections such trouble. Rd232 ^talk 21:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I wouldn't clean them up. Nor that what I'm doing is un-improvable - which would be at odds with your other suggestion. It is simply a matter of attitude - if people state problems clearly and without prejudice they can generally be resolved. If they want to play games that appease their egos they are going to have problems, eventually even with someone as laid back and obliging as I. It's simple psychology, I see Fram's sig and my conditioned response is "oh no here we go again" - that's the polite version. That's why I suggest they go somewhere else and persue other interests. There are millions of editors and nearly 2000 admins - of those there are only maybe 5 who make my heart sink when I see they have commented. And I know two of them would be delighted to know it. The other three I believe mean well. Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

Your frustration is evident, not for the first time. I think you underestimate your own contribution to this state affairs: failing to get BRFA for the mass redirect creation is a simple example, since the issue later identified might well have come up there. More generally, if you didn't spread yourself so widely (doing different tasks at once) and did more testing, it might work out better for everyone. Rd232 ^talk 13:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Smackbot[edit]

Just FYI. Smackbot clean wiped the United States diplomatic cables leak article. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm.. that was right after or right before an edit conflict. TY. Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Ah. Edit conflicts cause the bot to overwrite the code entirely? High profile articles like this will always turn out edit conflicts! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear why this is happens. AWB has special checks to avoid writing a blank page, we had previously suspected a bug in the API. Historically SmackBot has hit this problem extremely rarely, and non-reproducibly, the same applies to other AWB users. I can pass the information on to the AWB developers, who will make the necessary investigations. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Converted broken[edit]

{{Converted}} was broken after your edit. Can you please fix it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Francis Wingfield[edit]

Hi, I had a look at Francis Wingfield for DYK, and it seems to be coming up quite short of the required 1500 chars, especially since 2/3 of the article is a block quote. --Worm 11:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll see what I can find in the Museum and Library. Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot blanked a page by mistake[edit]

SmackBot messed up at Herbert Henry Dow High School -- blanked the page! --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks looks like an API/AWB bug that we get about every 200,000 edits, but maybe partly due to something I have just logged as a potential problem. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC).

Also an AWB blanking at Bridgeton, New Jersey, fyi. 174.109.197.174 (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Need to check on AWB timestamp query which may relate to the first one. Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

AWB is timstamping. Also has code to prevent saving empty pages - I've seen that trigger several times. Needs more research. Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Raised on AWB talk. Rich Farmbrough, 01:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Monthly clean up categories[edit]

I can't figure out why 73 of the monthly clean up categories for December are showing up at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Since your bot works with the categories, I was wondering you had an idea as to why they're showing up. — ξ ^xplicit 19:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bug in the template code. Scanning... scanning... Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Yes fixed it, I believe. Will take awhile for category lag to clear the CSDs down. meanwhile if a few get deleted it's not the end of the world, as Femto Bot will re-create them. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

STOP[edit]

This edit and this edit to {{splitsection}} tags added a date as usual but removed a redlinked proposed article title. This resulted in the discussion talkpage link being misidentified as the proposed target page[120][121]. I manually corrected it. — AjaxSmack 02:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, bug already fixed see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp96&diff=prev&oldid=399638581 for example. Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Malfunction[edit]

The bot has made this edit twice; breaking the afd-merge-to template. Courcelles 00:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Smackbot making unnecessary edits?[edit]

Looking at the 25 most recent SmackBot edits (Goatse.cx to Brighton railway station), there are seven that only consist of removing an empty line from the page. I don't believe that this is what the bot is supposed to do.[122][123][124][125][126][127][128]. Fram (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting. Yobot and SmackBot probably failed to fix something in the page. It's also interesting that SmackBot removes a blank line added by AWB. DEFAULTSORT must have a blank line above it and SmackBor removes it at the moment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, Smackbot removes the line at the 15th[129], Yobot adds it the 20th, and Smackbot again removes it this morning... This could go on for quite a while! The same happened at ZootFly. At LGBT rights by country or territory, Smackbot removed one empty line the 27th[130], and another one this morning. Yobot was not involved in this one. At Valerie (The Zutons song) the previous Smackbot edit, from the 27th, was an unneccesary template recapitalization[131]. The same happened at Saint Patrick, with a lot of unneeded template capitalization changes the 27th[132]. Kyrgyzstani parliamentary election, 2010 combines the two problems, edit warring over empty lines with Yobot, and a change from reflist to Reflist at the 27th.

So it looks like we have a kind of pointless edit war with Yobot, and two runs of unwanted botruns, one at the 27th changin template capitalizations without any other changes, and one this morning removing enmpty lines without any other changes. Fram (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Human hair growth appears in Category:Articles with unsourced statements, so Yobot did a run to add dated templates after WP:BOTREQ. Normal AWB behaviour is to have an empty line above DEFAULTSORT per Manual of Style. I guess two actions are needed: simplifying code using more of new AWB features to dated templates and see what's wrong with the page and/or the category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess is because {{Time fact}} wasn't dated. This edit fixed the problem in this particular case. Now AWB will add date to time fact. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that in such cases (when the bot tries to date tags, but doesn't in fact change any), the bot should just skip the page instead of making inconsequential changes only. Error rates of 7 out of 25 are a bit too high of course. 09:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is for Rich to solve it :) Especially, I am interested to see the DEFAULTSORT issue fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw:

TagUpdater: coverts ISO dates rev 7433 and rev 7434.
Recall, that AWB already fixes |date=november 2010 to |date=November 2010.
- I hope these help you simplify your code.
Moreover, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KarlsenBot 6 can do the dating tags part so you can focus on the fix tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Uh yes.. Because of the idiots and the ANI a whole load of new problems have occurred - bots running of the same list for example, SmackBot's gentle evolution to keep up with changes stopped for a couple months. My requests for tweaks to AWB stopped for a couple of months. The backlist of difficult cases which I had spent several days solid clearing now regrown. This is what is meant by Tampering, and it will take time to fix it all. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC).
  - So, what else we could add in AWB to make things easier? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    - It will just take time to get back to normal. The work I was planning on categorising more changes as minor has been postponed. I'm picking up 2 months worth of new templates that need tagging. That will just happen over the next few days. There are some substed tags. I was caught up with all this back in September, and I will catch up again. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Category:Statements with common sense issues[edit]

Femto Bot recreated Category:Statements with common sense issues again. What to do? --Bsherr (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I needed to do [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADating_maintenance_categories_progress_box&action=historysubmit&diff=399540257&oldid=396925731 this. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Ah. Good. --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rich, it recreated it again. --Bsherr (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Very odd. Lag maybe. still it stayed deleted now for a while. Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

The progress box for Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements is showing a negative number for the undated line. Any idea why or how to fix it? --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's because that category is non-standard for dated clean up categories, having nested sub-cats. The correction for sub-categories is therefore an over-correction. It would be fixable , but bearing in mind that category membership is subject to all sorts of lag (i.e. it is inaccurate) it doesn't seem worth a lot of effort. Instead I have applied a "fiddle factor" which is a built in facility. Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

That explains it. Are there other cleanup cats that nest? What about converting them? --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's the only one where it is variable. There are other cases where an entire by-month hierarchy is a sister to individual by-month categories. But these are fixed differences and the "factor" parameter can allow for them, if anyone cares enough to apply it. For myself I believe that the infrastructure there is fit for purpose, and no further tweaks are needed at the moment, although there is some scope for making the names more uniform, and ditching the largely redundant "all X" categories. Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Rearranging references again[edit]

SmackBot is rearranging references again. [133] [134] I undid these edits once, thinking maybe it was just bad settings yesterday, and the bot made the same broken edits today. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's not the settings, it's the version of AWB. I have restarted using the broken version, so that should not happen. That version should be clear in the contribs history/edit summaries. Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Edit to VM article on 09/28[edit]

Hi, I had noticed that you changed to Capitalization on Cite on the references on Van Morrison article on Sept 28, 2010. I started using the Capitalization form myself but in the meantime, I have not found any other instances of the capital letter being used. If it shouldn't be this way will you change it back? Thanks so much. Agadant (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is somewhat disputed, but the consensus seems to be that it doesn't matter, but that I shouldn't change them in either direction. Rich Farmbrough, 06:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Well, like YAH! Don't matter a bit since the preprocessor changes that first letter to a cap unless nocaps is set globally, like for instance on wiktionary, or the 'magic' word ({_{_{"lcase:"}_}_}... iirc) is specified locally. (Hey there Rick! Long time, no...) FrankB 13:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Schröder–Bernstein property[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Schröder–Bernstein property requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lord Chamberlain, the Renowned (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Femto Bot error[edit]

I've undone this edit by Femto Bot, as it looked like an error. Fram (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The other edits it makes are also quite erratic, e.g. twice editing User:SmackBot when no change to the underlying BRFA is made. Fram (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a problem with the WP site returning a blank page - both for BRFA SB 38 and this page. This same symptom occurred once before. Very hard to test for intermittent problems like this, however I have put some defensive coding in. Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

UK IRC community meeting[edit]

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Francis Wingfield[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Francis Wingfield at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot copy edit category[edit]

Richard, Why is Smackbot removing Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit as it did here? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Because these categories should never be stand-alone in an article, they should be part of a template. When they are explicit they are usually left behind form a template that someone has "substed". Rich Farmbrough, 05:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

dear rick[edit]

long ago, you commented on my edit to ace doubles. writing to yo about a huge problem for me with wiki: it appears (see url below) that people are repackaging wiki content and selling it. I personally, am not going to do one darn thing for wiki if this is allowed; that is my personal bottom line - do you have a feeling ? if you agree, "we" - the people who don't like this - need to speak up, or wiki really will die regarsCinnamon colbert (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC) http://www.amazon.com/Zeta-Potential-Lambert-M-Surhone/dp/6131060002/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291143235&sr=1-5

Yes, it is a little dubious, the way they bundle articles chosen automatically. I am leaving a review of the book, this is the best response. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

The same group of editors seem to have produced a wide range of Wikipedia-based books (click on one of them on Amazon to see the other titles) - 140 pages about a card game, etc! PamD (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

More and more weird: the "product description" for the card game book http://www.amazon.com/Raise-Roof-Card-Lambert-Surhone/dp/6132929452/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291149972&sr=1-5 is exactly the article at Raise the Roof (card game) - so what else is there in the book on the rest of the 140 pages? White space? PamD (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not buying one to find out! Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

There's about 4 or 5 organisations doing this. Business model: it costs them nothing, they print on demand, Amaozn gives them free marketing. Main problem for us, reputation, volunteer disincentive, and people trying to cite these books via Google books! Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Disable this bot on "lists"[edit]

The bot is repeatedly asking for cites and references on the List of Aircraft, which is not right. You shouldn't be putting references on wikipages that are merely lists of other wikipages. Is there any way to turn this darn thing off in that application??? --Raymondwinn (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

Note that the person who added the tags had an edit summary of "cn; completed tagging of redlinks in the G section of the page; many more sources are needed for many other claims)" Rich Farmbrough, 12:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

STOP[edit]

Please stop editing my page. They took out everything at the bottom, which is not advertising, just general information.

Thanks.

Cast Management

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On a BOT or AWB note...[edit]

Working the Mongol invasion of Europe... I just removed a ton-a-bunch of unref taggings in 1229-1242 and likely one or two more around the 1730-1740 period of the Conejohela War. Just so happens you made this edit about the same time as the person who'd tagged these summation (ALMANAC?) pages (and reminding me of your miserable existence! lol), so what's the skinny. Looks to me like that was an organized effort given his summation, and that a bot or AWB was employed.

Logic in my head says these pages make no sense to have local cites-- they provide links to detailed articles, not wordy explanations. Cites would make maintaining them a whole lot of trouble, vice a quick hit and run edit to update the year's details. Being summaries... I think someone's BOT ought to make sure they all be current untagged... and if necessary untag them as I was and will continue to do. if and when.

Note the balanced reaction and sentiment conveyed oh so diplomatically in my boilerplate following: <g> <x!--{{unreferenced|date=November 2009}} summary page dum dum, see linked pages for cites --->

Nice to see ya again. // FrankB 14:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Erik9bot did unref tagging/catting. Due to some "resistance" at BRFA it ended up putting them in an Erik9Bot specific cat, which is just crazy... But then it turned out that Erik9 was a banned (blocked?) user... so the bot stopped making it even more crazy. I did a conversion job to "proper" unref tags, but even there there was some resistance so I had a special "invisible" tag for stubs.. a few months later it got merged into the main unnref tag. And now it;s all as it should have been form day 1. <chuckle> Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot: request for tweaks in articles[edit]

Please send the bot to Oliver Hazard Perry‎ and Three hares. Thank you for your help on Barber's pole. Thank you and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

happy to help. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Date to the maintenance tags[edit]

Hi, I want to run a bot on huwiki which adds dates to the maintenance tags, like your bot does it here. Can you tell me if it is a pywikipedia script or not? Can you upload it for me? Thanks, --Deni42 (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No it's WP:AWB , the main functionality is now built in. There is a certain page that lists the templates to be dates and it s then part of General Fixes. It may "just work" or you ay need to ask for the functionality to be added for hu:. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

Conclusion - try again[edit]

(copied by RF)
OK, let's try and wrap up some recommendations:

Don't use AWB on your main account. Use a different one, perhaps specifically for AWB. cf AWB rule 2.
Every AWB edit is supposed to be manually reviewed (AWB rule 1). Don't forget that.
AWB "stock changes" are permitted by the edit restrictions, including template redirects listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. But as that page itself notes, and as the edit restrictions emphasise, even those stock changes should not be made on their own, without any substantive changes to the page. AWB has settings to ensure that this doesn't happen, as discussed above - so use them. But in addition, see point 2.

On a related issue, it's not clear to me how redirects get into the AWB list. There is an unsatisfactory discussion here. Anyone? PS It would be good to see Smackbot up and running again, if you can sort out the coding to ensure it behaves in a manner consistent with the editing restriction. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Rich Farmbrough, 09:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Good. Thank you. Rd232 ^talk 11:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you planning on unblocking the bot anytime soon? Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

BRFA[edit]

I currently have a BRFA open at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KarlsenBot 6 for dating maintenance tags, in which your input has been requested. Is this a task you intend to continue running? Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it certainly is. There are about 4 bots approved for the task, and having more available - "do no harm" - and even if two runn at the same time the worst is a few edits of the kind that I am forbidden to make, but which don't really matter.. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

Olena Onufriv[edit]

Hi Rich, just letting you know that although you declined a PROD from this page, it's been speedied since, and again blatantly recreated. I've done all the possible WP:BEFORE and found this subject to be a non-notable career starter. and I've put a new CSD on it. If you don't agree, feel free to decline it, but it will still probably have to go to AfD. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, its often hard to ref even mainstream artists from these places, and though the refs were poor they did at least show product existed, but I won't loose any sleep over this one, either way.. Rich Farmbrough, 14:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC).

Question about a bot[edit]

I have a question about a bot but Im not sure if its possible or if it already exists. Since FEMTO bot seems to have similar logic I thought I would ask you. I have recently stumbled across a few articles in the last few days that fall under WikiProject US but have unanswered comments. The problem as I see it is that its nearly impossible to actively monitor every article in WPUS manually. Here is my idea: Would it be possible to make a bot that would, once a week or so scan through the list of articles and drop a note on the talk page for WPUS with something like "The following articles for this project have unanswered comments older than 10 days". I think 10 days is a reasonable time to give for folks to answer. If they havent anseered it by then they probably won't IMO. Im not sure how many comments that might be but it might actually be necessary to list them in a subpage and then link that to the talk page. Any ideas? Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean on /comments pages? What is an "unanswered comment"? If you can define that then it's do-able. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

That sounds like a great idea, if it can be made to work! As to how: perhaps a talk page with only one user (not adding wikiproject banners); or a section with only one comment in it? Or what about simply copying the most recent comment to a project page, once that comment is 10 days old? Then someone can look at the project page and tell from the comment if it's likely to need a response. With easy links to the full discussion, it would be quick to check that if necessary, and if it needs no further input, it can be removed from the project page. Rd232 ^talk 22:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the problem, the more I think about your idea the more I think that its not only the easiest and most feasible RD232, but also probably the most useful (too bad there is no project watchlist). I thought it might be possible but didn't know how to go about it myself and judging by the comment that just got added other projects would be interested as well. Here are a couple of ideas that I had, none of which I admit are particularly reliable:

Using the edit summery somehow. (like if it says something like /* Question about a bot */ reply)
Looking at the actual talk page and if the comment has a : or * under it. (Indicating it had been replied too)
Using the UTC info and If a section had been added in the last ten days and another UTC Date time appeared in the same section but later.

A couple comments in general

What to do if the article has more than one comment in the last X # of days. Probably should just list the most recent.
Probably should ignore bot edits (but maybe not)
How to differentiate between actual comments and just cleanup edits or the additional of templates and banners and the like. --Kumioko (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Found something that applies here. I posted an Idea to the VP Idea lab about a watch list for WikiProjects and I got this in reply from User Dispenser so it looks like there is a tool we can use for this but they still don't completely answer the question/problem:

"There are several methods already. Some projects create a list of all pages and simply use Special:RecentChangesLinked to monitor it. User:Tim1357 created a tool for project banners. However, from what I've seen with the former method, their simply not enough users watching them." --Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010[edit]

News and notes: Backlog drive; youth and confidence among Wikipedians, brief news

In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report

Interview: Interview with Johanna Niesyto and Nathaniel Tkacz from "Critical Point of View"

WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays

Features and admins: The best of the week

Election report: Voting in full swing

Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

17th Test Squadron[edit]

Hi Regardining the information at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_Test_Squadron ... our squadron graphic has changed. How do I get a new graphic update on the page? Ronald J. Martwick 17th Test Squadron Space Innovation and Development Center 719-567-6134 ronald.martwick of schriever.af.mil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.31.3.196 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

replied by email. Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion by days left doesn't seem to be working right[edit]

Hi,

I noticed that some articles seem to have the wrong number of days left in Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion by days left. It looks like articles that had the BLPPROD template added today are currently showing up as having 1 day left. Since I think you were the one who created that categorization, I wanted to let you know so hopefully you can fix whatever isn't working. Calathan (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmph. Yes. I assumed that there would be between 0 and 9.999999999 days left. Looks like I was wrong and 10 gets sorted with 1. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

I made a cosmetic change and it all came right. I can only blame category lag - there was a bug the day I implemented it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

Edit count list[edit]

Rich, please take a look here. I don't see the list, only this date stamp: 05:06, 01 December 2010 (UTC) I tried to fix it, but I don't think it's supposed to work that way. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The actual list sits at User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 3. Guess that got clobbered. Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

Sorted, there was an "onlyinclude" around the timestamp. Dropped a note to the botop. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

UK Community Notice - IRC meeting[edit]

Dear Wikipedian,

This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here

More to come about:

Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 05:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

Where did you get your information from when you previously edited the OFWGKTA discography i.e. Free Sweatshirt, The Sweaty Martian, Wolfpack etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howl5 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't. Check the history more carefully. Rich Farmbrough, 18:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

Apollo 13[edit]

Hi Rich,

There is a section in the above article headed 'Root cause analysis'. Since RCA is a technical term, I changed this to 'Root cause analysis' so that there was a page link available to the 'Root cause analysis' wikipedia page by clicking the section heading. Smackbot has removed the page link and returned the heading to just being plain text. Can you help me understand the benefit of that please? My understanding of wikipedia guidelines is that links to other pages should be used.

Any help is much appreciated.

Best regards, Socheid (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says To avoid accessibility problems, headings should not normally contain links. Exactly what the accessibility issues are I don't know, but I would imagine they are related to screen-readers. Rich Farmbrough, 14:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

Cheers Rich,

Socheid (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with wikify tagger fixed[edit]

rev 7446 discounts persondata from wikify evaluation. This fixes the problem with unnecessary wikify tags in stubs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Recent changes/Page2[edit]

For the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Recent changes/Page2, nothing on there relates to Hawaii. It's totally about Wikiproject Texas. The most recent activity on there was a move by you. Do you think maybe it needs to be moved to WikiProject Texas? Maile66 (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it was created in error in 2006. No other move history. I deleted it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

Fram[edit]

Yet again Fram succeeds in getting SmackBot blocked. Congratulations. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

Yet again Rich succeeds in getting SmackBot blocked. - there, fixed that for you. Rd232 ^talk 22:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, proximate cause. Fram has nothing better to do than stalk my edits. Or rather imagines it is so. There is real work to do here, instead of pissing around trying to prove something irrelevant. Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

TagUpdater: Even better[edit]

rev 7451: Removes dated even if first digit is zero + removed comma between month and year. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

AN[edit]

Clearly this business with the editing restrictions isn't working. See WP:AN. Rd232 ^talk 00:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

ANI notice[edit]

An ANI section concerning your actions has been started at WP:ANI#WP:POINT violations through AWB by User:Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

SB tempalte redirect[edit]

Rich, am I going nuts, or are you here doing a template redirect which isn't on the AWB standard list? Rd232 ^talk 01:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope no template redirect, just a little list formatting rule,that I need to yank out. Rich Farmbrough, 04:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

OK, thanks, please do. Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Same thing happened hare and here (checking only SmackBot's 20 most recent edits). Fram (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, why are you using AWB on your main account when you have Smackbot? [135] Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Small one-off jobs are better run manually than waiting for BRFA. See the previous section for a BRFA that's taken a month to get to trial status, which I would probably have been able to code and run same day. Rich Farmbrough, 18:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

I didn't (and don't, but if I'm wrong, please correct me) think a BRFA would be needed just by virtue of doing it from a different user account; that doesn't make sense to me. I'm thinking of WP:AWB rule 2. They may be small jobs, but you do so many, they would be better run from an alternate account. Rd232 ^talk 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Checked the last ten edits of tonight, and again two of them are unnecessary and unwanted bot edits: this and this. Fram (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And again: here. Fram (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a completely different thing, go and look again. Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

As Rich has made no response to these concerns and the bot is continuing to make these edits which contravene the editing restriction, I have blocked the bot indefinitely. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the time limit on responding to trolls?
Did you not know that the bot can be stopped by leaving it a message?

Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

I think it's best if you step away from your computer for a while because if you continue like this, calling editors trolls, etc., your account will be blocked fairly rapidly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK applies. In the end Fram's behaviour is that of a passive-aggressive troll, whether he intends to troll becomes irrelevant. Rich Farmbrough, 08:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Have to agree. See eg also [136] (reflist -> Reflist) and [137] same plus see also -> See also plus a redirect replacement ({{Toomanylinks}}) not on the AWB list. Rd232 ^talk 11:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually these last couple that you mentioned were valid and are needed. Not only did they do the minor edits that you mentioned he also dated a couple templates which is needed. Just because something isn't on the AWB list of changes doesn't mean it isn't allowed. Also there is nothing wrong with using AWB on your main account. I can't explain or justify why he does some that are trivial removing only blanks but you are picking one or 2 cases out of hundreds or thousands of edits. --Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, you're clearly new to this. See WP:editing restrictions, and look for Rich's entry, and note the footnote there. Also plenty of previous discussion on this talk page. Mixing good changes (dating templates) with bad doesn't make the bad OK, and this is a long-term pattern which Rich keeps promising to fix. Also on AWB "main account" issue, see WP:AWB Rule 2. Rd232 ^talk 13:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am very familiar with it and I would stop responding too if I had 2 or 3 editors hounding me and scrutinizing every edit I made. Its also going to make matters wors when every edit you do is criticized and remarked upon. Yes he does some questionable (I don't agree their all bad and many are arguably helpful in various ways) edits (anyone who did 30, 000 edits a month would) and I can't excuse that but I have seen several editors include good edits as bad edits (such as the last couple above) and knowone seems to say anything other than the ones that are stalking him. I am very familiar with the AWB rules and rule to says you should consider it, not that its required. I also want to point out that since smackbot has been stopped there has been a dramatic increase in the number of undated maintenance templates, the number of articles that have those templates is growing and 90% of the good edits that Smackbot used to perform are not happening. So if the wikiprocess has become so unforgiving that a few bad edits aren't allowed then we need to shut down the bot process wikiwide (because there all going to make some). Since the issue of the bad edits is such an issue for you I suggest you start a bot that does the same things as smackbot so that it can be done the way you want to do it. This will also allow the work to be done since Smackbot is blocked indefinately know. I also feel like I should mention that what I have witnessed here has made me not want to start up a bot as I had planned. --Kumioko (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's called WP:CREEP. There have been complaints before, and comments from me complaining about how trivial and petty those complaints were. Plus ça change, plus ça reste la même. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I just think that too much time is being spent overburdening one editor with rules that aren't being enforced to all other users and on edits that are arguable. I also think that constant attention and blocks for what amounts to edits of opinion is rather unnecessary. Especially when it could be argued that any edit being made to AWB is trivial. The whole point of using AWB is to do edits that would otherwise be too tedious and slow to do manually. --Kumioko (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since he is probably the most prolific bot and AWB editor, it is only logical that his edits will be noted by more people and get more scrutiny. But your assertion that it could be asserted that any edit done by AWB is trivial is obviously incorrect. Being tedious and slow to do is not the same as being trivial, and trivial changes are not part of what AWB is for. A random example from the recent changes log: this is not trivial, and (assuming the correct target is selected) is a good use of AWB. Rich Farmbrough replacements of incorrect lfprp links with correct ones in footballer biographies is also a very good, non-trivial use of AWB. Adding or removing whitelines, changing the capitalization of templates, ... is on the other hand an utterly useless and annoying edit, filling up recent changes, watchlists, ... for no gain at all. These are not "edits of opinion" (and edits of opinion should never be done through AWB or a bot anyway), these are edit count fillers. He has promised time and time again that the bot was improved to make such edits impossible (or at least very, very rare), but still they appear very regularly. Enough editors opposed this in previous discussions to get him an edit restriction, and he was lucky the last time not to get a more severe one. Fram (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I only meant that it could be "argued" they were trivial, not that I believed it to be that way. That example is a manual find and replace done by the editor and not a general fix of AWB. The lfprp item you mentioned is interesting as well since it was pointed out above as a bad edit being done by Rich. The matter of opinion thing comes from the lower to upper case switch (some of us prefer them as upper case, you and some others prefer it lower). Although I can understand where some editors don't like it when their watchlists fill up this should never be used as a reason IMO. If articles in my watchlist are getting edited, even if the edits are minor, I am glad. Even minor edits, over time can make a huge improvement to the article. I wished I could remember the article but I recently had an article that was a start class, had about 50 blank lines, the stub tags where above the categories, some minor formatting was out of place, I removed spaces before and after sentences and before puncutation and references. In all I think it was something like 250 characters of "minor" edits that once completed made about a massive improvement. All of which would have been considered a minor edit by your logic and not worth doing. As far as the edit count goes, who cares. If an editor is spending time doing so many edits they are #1 on the list (Rich replaces his name with Placeholder by the way) and has done so many edits that they will soon hit the 1 million edit mark then great they deserve that spot. Even if they do a couple of unneeded edits IMO. For the record I don't "agree" with every edit he has made but in the end, other than a couple that are arguably unnecessary, they don't hurt WP or the articles they are done on so I don't mind it. If he was actually breaking articles (I know smackbot did this a couple times but its rare and the problem has been fixed) or something like that it would be different but thats not the case. --Kumioko (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you cared about editcountitis, since in another recent discussion on this very talk page, you wrote: "Someone has to do it I guess since the bot isn't allowed to run for more than a couple hours at a time. That should help at least a dozen editors keep their edit counts up so a couple of insignificant edits can be saved." As for the scarcity of his bot errors, we will have to agree to disagree about this, I would call this rather frequent. Only yesterday, his Femto Bot removed all contents of this talk page... Fram (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fram please stop being a troll. Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

AWB Rule 4 is "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits." The community has imposed editing restrictions essentially to require Rich to respect this rule, and it is becoming increasingly tiresome that Rich is seemingly unable to cut out the unwanted edits (or parts of edits) from his Smackbot code and AWB use. His enormously prolific contributions are much valued, I just don't understand why it continues to be an issue so long after it was agreed what should happen. There have been some ambiguities and misunderstandings in discussing the precise applicability of restrictions, but those have been handled, and we're left with no obvious reason for the failure to fix a basically straightforward problem. Rd232 ^talk 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand many Smackbot's settings are like that in order to add and fix some difficult dated tags cases. I have a suggestion that probably will reduce the problem: Smackbot can first run in the list of undated tags only with built-in general fixes and then rerun to the remaining list with its customised settings. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's not impossible, though I would have thought it possible to fix rather than work around like that. And it surely doesn't cover reflist->Reflist, does it? Rd232 ^talk 22:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB now fixes some incorrect capitalisisation on dated tags like november -> November and Date= -> date=. I don't know if these help SmackBot to stop using generic capitalisation of templates in order to catch errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is twofold. First its tampering on an epic scale. For example correcting the redirects to Reflist includes {{REFLIST}} - and that rule is case insensitive to include all the other redirects regardless of leading case. Screwing around with the rules makes things break. It consumes my time for no real purpose.

Secondly you want me to invest a significant amount of my time fine tuning stuff that only Fram complains about. And the incentive is "we will let you continue to work for free." I am quite happy to continue making evolutionary changes, but I just spent today wondering why SmackBot was failing to write pages - assuming it was due to serve load or an API bug. I was going to edit one of the XML files and test a minor "improvement" but nothing has happened. Becasue MSG was trigger happy over some pernicious complaint. <meh>

Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

The only way of avoiding making any inconsequential edits would be to bundle in a very large number of scripted functions, be very specific with the list of articles to be edited, and to pre-parse the list. Doing all of these can take a very significant extra time and effort, and lead to people complaining about inaccurate or inadequate edit summaries, so it's a no-win. It seems that the end is to keep one or two editors happy. FWIW, I actually happen to bundle a lot, but I still occasionally find articles on the list which are null edits except for inconsequential ones. I often see Fram editing articles on my watchlist with AWB, and I'm surprised that Fram doesn't seem to realise that this is "a cost of doing business". ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I only hope that they don't scare Rich off or they may turn their attention to us.:-) --Kumioko (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Draw attention to the way I use AWB?? Although I try not to do any inconsequential edits, they might find something else to complain about! Thankfully, I am small fry, doing only about 3–500 articles a day max. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I hit 2700 today alone and more than a thousand a day fro the last couple weeks. If they wanna comb through that all the power too them. They might find a few. --Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I usually go through twenty or thirty edits only. Patterns of problems often become quite easily visible this way. I have no inclination to go through all edits to list every exceptional problem. Apart from that: if I make errors or problematic edits when using AWB (which isn't all that often anywayà, feel free to contact me about it. Fram (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010[edit]

News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive

In the news: Amazon "shopping-enabling" Wikipedia; Al Jazeera interview; be like Wikipedia

GLAM-WIKI London: British Museum hosts two days of talks between Wikimedia and the cultural sector

WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak

WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

Features and admins: Birds and insects

Arbitration report: New case: World War II

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry about the e-mail issues. I wanted to know if you would "follow" a new Dermatology and Dermatopathology forum proposal I am working on. Also, perhaps you could vote as to which questions you consider on/off topic? In general, I have enjoyed collaborating with you on Wikipedia, and would love to have you following this project as well. Thoughts? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, as I said I am not a dermatologist, or even medically qualified, so there is probably little I can do right away (although I am interested in question and answer from a human machine interface point of view). The main query I would have - which stops me from rating the questions - is whether "Proposed Q&A site for expert dermatologist[S] and dermatopathologists " is for expert-expert, public-expert, non-expert-expert or a combination. Also what constitutes an expert dermatologist? Rich Farmbrough, 07:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

AN/ANI discussion[edit]

I've attempted to restart the AN discussion to focus on the long-term substantive issue. I urge you to be as helpful as you can there in explaining the concrete and practical difficulties you face in respecting the editing restrictions, and in coming up with solutions if you can.

On the Fram/Geoswan thing - I can't do any better than quote Fifelfoo in that thread: "You appear to be particularly combative at the moment Rich, considered taking a cup of tea?" You appear to have lost perspective on Fram and his actions for the moment, and I urge you to be mature enough to recognise that and act accordingly until this passes (compare being mature enough not to drive when drunk). Rd232 ^talk 13:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI: Ok that's perhaps useful.

On the Geo Swan, I would say rather that I have just found perspective on that. I was aware that there was a fairly long running issue, but I had not seen Geo Swan's talk page for some time, nor indeed Fram's, let alone Fram threatening an Arb who advised him to disengage. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Please provide a diff of me "threatening an arb". Fram (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the above post, being highly confrontational, was not helpful in the least. I suggest Fram stay off this talk page for a while, and allow the temperature to drop a few degrees. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, with "the above post", do you mean mine or Rich Farmbrough's? Fram (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I meant both. You're both trying to provoke each other, so I reckon you guys ought to stay in your own corners for now. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

When an admin makes serious claims about me, I am not going to let that just pass without any evidence. I don't think my reply to him was in any way "provoking" him, it was a short, clear question directly relevant to the previous post, without any additional comments or provocational content. I have ignored his direct personal attacks as long as they were clearly just his opinion (e.g. the multiple instances of him calling me a troll), but when he makes factual claims about me, he should back them up, and asking for this should not be discouraged. Fram (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I reiterate my suggestion that you stay off this page. As there's already an AN/ANI in progress, that's where the action should be. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"You are free to start an RfC, but be aware that your own behaviour may come under scrutiny as well" Rich Farmbrough, 20:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

Apart from the fact that that hardly is a threat, just fair warning (people starting an RfC are often as much the focus of attention as the intended target of the user RfC is), I would really prefer if you would provide a diff, so that I and everyone else can see where I said thia, in reply to whom, in what context, etcetera... It is still not clear to me where this comes from, and which arb I supposedly directed this statement to (I can't remember saying anything like this about any member of arbcom, and I can't remember any ArbCom member about to start an RfC on me either). Fram (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

~~There was nothing wrong with Fram's remark, and no good can come of pursuing it further. Rich, please strike your accusation, and Fram, just let it go. Rd232 ^talk 20:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)~~

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:All articles with unsourced statements[edit]

Category:All articles with unsourced statements, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Magioladitis (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Mirror Bot[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

CSD template[edit]

There are several templates up for CSD at CSD, such as Template:ISO 3166 code Saint Kitts And Nevis

Are you fine with the deletion? I'm happy to do it, but wanted to make sure.--SPhilbrick T 20:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, deletion is a bad idea. {{ISO 3166 code|Saint Kitts And Nevis}} => KN. This means we can get the code from a country field. More: we can do this:

{{ISO 3166 name|{{ISO 3166 code|Saint Kitts And Nevis}}}} => Saint Kitts and Nevis

This mean we can to some extent canonicalize place names up to level 2. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

I reverted all the CSDs (other than the one you reverted), and urged the nominator to contact you to try to convince you that they are not needed.--SPhilbrick T 21:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. There is one where two words are run together that could probably go - I'll try to find it.. Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Just a bad typeface made me think that. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

(edit conflict)These templates can work as proposed, but they currently aren't doing that very much. You created several thousand ISO 3166 templates in May, but they are only used in four articles at present. Is there a plan to use these on a wider basis? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are two places in particular where they could be used usefully: Infobox settlement and Infobox road or whatever it is called. Unfortunately while I might normally summon the energy to implement them I do not have the energy to cope with NIH syndrome which seems rampant in some of those places. Please however feel free to use or constructively abuse them as and where required. Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC).

fyi[edit]

In case you did not notice. The BLP issues refer to the Guantanamo detainees. Please do not re-add the information. IQinn (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you. You should not -re-revert without cause. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Libertarianism[edit]

Hi, your automated AWB tool made edit to the fully-protected article Libertarianism without any discussion, removing a large swath of sourced content and tagging the edit as "minor". This is a highly contentious article; administrators should not be making unilateral major changes. I recommend you revert yourself. If your AWB tool is failing to recognize full protection, please refrain from using it. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, no content was removed. The duplicated (and long) footnote number 5 was de-duplicated. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Ah, I see that now. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cosmetic changes contrary to editing restrictions[edit]

Thread retitled from "Unattended bot edits from your main account (errors in userspace javascript)".

I thought you weren't going to do stuff like this anymore? [138] –xeno^talk 21:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Who says its an unattended bot edit? Look at my contribs to see the .js I didn't avoid and reverted. Some joker is doing something stupid in the .js - and making life very difficult through weird categorisation, possibly the expicit {cleanup} in the js, but possibly not. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

If it was attended, you wouldn't have saved it... And also [139] ? –xeno^talk 21:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Tosh, and you know it. Humans make as many or more errors than machines. Rich Farmbrough, 21:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

If it was unattended I wouldn't have been there to revert myself. <Extensive facepalming> Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

So either you're still doing unattended edits or you're simply clicking save without looking at what you're doing. And you've seemingly taken up on your main account what you can't do on SmackBot because of the block? –xeno^talk 21:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh no. A couple of mis-clicks are quite reasonable. And I have always done most of the non-main space stuff manually. There are a zillion bots dating tags on articles - I've done maybe a couple hundred articles today just as preliminary testing. Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Weren't the unnecessary capitalization changes removed from AWB? –xeno^talk 22:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Define unnecessary. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Changes that are not necessary. –xeno^talk 22:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case yes. Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

So why are you still making unnecessary capitalization changes? –xeno^talk 22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB is replacing the template redirects that were incorrectly named accroding to the guidleines with the correctly named target templates. This is necessary. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

But as far as I know, AWB's stock changes do not change {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}}, yet in these edits you do? AWB's stock changes also retain first-letter capitalization during redirect bypass. –xeno^talk 22:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Retaining first letter capitalisation has been shown to be a nonsense with the IMDB situation. As far as Reflist is concerned it stands on a line (and usually a section) of its own and therefore does not fall in to the same category as the cite templates, moreover there are specific problems around the case-sensitivity of some of the redirects that make this a little problematic. Even more important, but less relevant, it is a crying shame to deliberately leave a page in an appalling state for no good reason. Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

You may be appalled by lcfirst templates, but you've yet to demonstrate that the community-at-large shares your concerns. Please do refer to the editing restrictions listed under your name at WP:RESTRICT and adhere to them by not making unnecessary cosmetic changes absent those built into AWB or those with demonstrable consensus. –xeno^talk 22:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So why are you dropping by to express these concerns? Were you disturbed to encounter a capital R? Or just lacking other things to do that peruse my contribs? Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Not that it's entirely relevant, but I noticed an edit on my watchlist and was dismayed to see that you have returned to old habits despite clear restrictions prohibiting them. –xeno^talk 23:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Or to be more accurate you immediately jumped to conclusions that were both wrong and unjustified. An old habit of yours. And then searched for other reasons to be "in the right" if not actually right. A habit of many. Rich Farmbrough, 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm unwatching your page again now. Thanks for your time, –xeno^talk 23:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would you edit someone else's sandbox?[edit]

Hello Rich, I see that you're an administrator and that you make a lot of bot-assisted "general fixes", but I must ask: why did you decide to edit two of my sandbox pages like this and this? These are my personal pages, clearly marked with the "Userspace Draft" template. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason I edited them is that the {{Userspace draft}} template needs to be dated. If you go to preferences and turn it on you will see that "Userspace drafts" are in a hierarchy of dated categories. Category:Userspace drafts from December 2010 in this case. Other changes are things that are likely to be improvements if/when the page goes live. Incidentally revisiting I have commented out the content categories and interwikis which should only be restores as and when the page goes back to article space. Rich Farmbrough, 03:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

OK I see, thank you. I'll date any future draft templates I make. But please do consider adding that instruction to the related bots' edit summaries, and certainly to the Template:Userspace draft page. (I see someone back in June inquired about the possibility of a bot adding dates to draft templates but there was no response.) SteveStrummer (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The documentation is not protected, but I have updated it anyway. And thanks for the note, I have replied on the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 05:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

Up-to-date list to bypass redirects to banners?[edit]

Where to do I find it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hhm time for a new one. Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 17 -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Any list? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. Great job on that BTW. I did notice a couple things that I wanted to mention though.

There are a few projects that are missing redirects as well as some projects missing (such as trains, LGBT studies, MILHIST and Biography)
There are a few projects that you are changing to redirects (I dont think we should be changing to redirects except maybe for MILHIST, Biography and the like since they dont have to same nameing convention)
I recommend setting them as minor edits. Personally I would rather just make the change and be done but I think that a lot of folks are going to kick up afuss if we do these relatively minro edits without doing something more significant at the same time.
I think we should setup a collaboration somewhere (maybe where its at now, not sure) so that we can all work on getting the whole list of projects with redirects. Its a huge undertaking and theres no reason why we shouldn't all share in the pain of building the list. --Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Rich. In addition to there being no mention of WPBiography and WPMILHIST in the lists here are some of the things I noticed on the list that I think should be changed: I changed these (and some others) to point to the correct project page rather than a redirect

{{\s*(WikiProject[ _]+Wikipedia[ _]+Saves[ _]+Public[ _]+Art|WikiProject[ _]+WSPA|) *([\|}\n])
{{WikiProject Wikipedia Saves Public Art$2

{{\s*(WikiProject[ _]+WikiProject[ _]+University[ _]+of[ _]+Arkansas|UARK) *([\|}\n])
{{WikiProject WikiProject University of Arkansas$2

{{\s*(WikiProject[ _]+DC|WikiProject[ _]+District[ _]+Of[ _]+Columbia|WikiProject[ _]+District[ _]+of[ _]+Columbia|WikiProject[ _]+Washington,[ _]+D\.C\.|WPDC|WikiProject[ _]+Washington[ _]+DC|WikiProject[ _]+DC) *([\|}\n])
{{WikiProject District of ColumbiaC$2

I added to the list I have and I recommend adding them to you

{{\s*(WikiProject[ _]+LGBT[ _]+studies|LGBTProject|LGBT Wikiproject|LGBTProject|WP LGBT|WPLGBT|WikiProject LGBT|WikiProject LGBT Studies) *([\|}\n])
{{WikiProject LGBT studies$2

{{\s*(WikiProject[ _]+Trains|TrainsWikiProject|RAIL|RR|Rail|TRAINS|TWP|Trains|WikiProject Train|WikiProject trains|Wikiproject Trains|Wikiproject trains) *([\|}\n])
{{WikiProject Trains$2

{{\s*(WikiProject[ _]+Dogs|DOGS|WPDOGS|Wikiproject Dogs|DOG) *([\|}\n])
{{WikiProject Dogs$2--Kumioko (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page banners[edit]

I was going to give you a list of the changes I made but I noticed you were pinned down by friendly fire so I created a page under my user name (User:Kumioko/Talkpage) for the WikiProject Banner cleanup talk page edits. Im not sure if you derived the list manually or mined it somehow but as I make changes to my list I will update this page as well. I have also been adding comments about when I changed it and basically what I did (but I didnt for the first couple days). Please feel free to use or modify this list so that we can all benefit from enhancements we all find and make. If you dont have time or whataver just drop a note on my talk page about the change you want me to make andn Ill do it as soon as I can. My XML skills are minimal so I usually just append to the bottom and then resort when I pull it into AWB rather than trying to find where it fits alphabetically. Here are a few of the things that I have been modifying as I find them:

Adding missing projects
Adding additional redirects
Changing the destinations to the actual project names (some were using redirects)

I actually perform a couple hundred other edits (like deleting empty unused fields (not things like priority or class but empty taskforces and the like), fixing parameters that say things like +, -, _, etc instead of =, adding listas if missing, changing listas title to listas key) but I cut those out for the sake of not mising things up. If you think I should inlcude these as well please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be best as a separate chunk I think. I have to decide how often to generate the XML for talk pages, it takes probably 45 minutes, and will pick up all current redirects (barring the bugs you know about) provided the current list of targets is up to date. This would slow down the main rule generation too much, so I probably need to start soemthing to make it run daily or weekly, again a minor problem since I am running on 750M of memory for some strange reason. Rich Farmbrough, 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

750 huh, I woulda thought you had more power than that..lol. Im not sure what the process is for generating the xml but is it possible to fix any of the things I mentioned automatically or would you have to go in and manually change them every time? How do you determine which WikiProjects to pull in? Is it based on most linked to or a category or something? In addition to the ones I mentioned above I also noticed a few of he WikiProjects on your list dont have any redirects at all so I disabled them in my list. --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but if you want to line them up nicely...

{{ WikiProject_________Bacon|
{{WikiProject Eggs
{{ WikiProject Black pudding

becomes

{{WikiProject Bacon|
{{WikiProject Eggs
{{WikiProject Black pudding

Although perhaps removing the trailing space tampering would be good in those cases. In fact I can produce a smarter XML now, with a little effort. Rich Farmbrough, 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

I have been manually culling through the list and I updated some more of the logic for the WikiProject Banner cleanup here with notes. I thought the notes might help you to refine the code. A summery of some of the changes:

More projects added
Some projects disabled that didn't have any redirects
disabled some that dont appear to be valid.
Added some other talk related templates.

Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I'll have a look. Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 22 November 2010[edit]

News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

Features and admins: The best of the week

Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cu-sect listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Cu-sect. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Cu-sect redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Bob Hilliard[edit]

Sorry, Rich, I have probably come to the wrong place for this one, but as you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, maybe you can help me. I have been trying to find an online reliable source(s) to confirm and enhance the death details for Mr. Hilliard for months and months, without success. I asked on the article's talk page, and got some information (after a lengthy time period) but it still did not seem to get me anywhere. I am hoping to find something to better conclude his article, before I suffer the same fate as him ! Feel free to redirect me, if you are busy, or think somewhere else is more equipped for such a plea, from this miserable little pleader. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK I had a good trawl, most sources were WP copies - including one un-attributed, so I fired them a friendly note...

Allmusic has the year 1971, however that seems to be possibly user generated.
Findagrave drew a blank.
Other possibilities include the way-back machine or similar to find a history of the dead link. It seemed to hiccup when I tried http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.itsnet.com/doc-rock/1970.html . (Note 1970 in the url.)
http://www.songwritershalloffame.org/exhibits/C272 - this gives the date but seems to be a copy of the article - which extensively cites it!
You can try at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, where there are probably more expert people at this, I know also User:Fences and Windows is good at finding cites.

Sorry I can't help more. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Many thanks for your fine efforts - much appreciated. I thought my Google search engine parameters (or whatever they are called) were faulty or aged - rather like me. I did find this, [140] which I often use, although Wikipedia seems to be divided over whether it is a reliable source or not. For death information, I think it is much more reliable, in that sense, than most whom are deemed reliable, if you follow me. Anyway, onwards and upwards - I do appreciate the time you have spent on this. Thanks, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=11861 IBDB has the death date, but I have no idea whether IDBD is a RS. Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

IDBD seems like an RS http://www.ibdb.com/policies.php. Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Insight from the generalist[edit]

Hi there Rich, I know that you identify as a generalist, an inveterate "fixer" and copy editor as you say, so I thought I'd seek your input on this-- I've put together what should be a significant step in bringing the PepsiCo article up from its present rating of Start-/C-class status (ratings differed from one wikiproject to the next) towards an eventual goal of it meeting good article standards. This has been a complex subject matter to tackle, but I thought it to be worthwhile in the interest of building the encyclopedia (and making for one fewer low-graded Top-Importance article). If you have an inclination, might you be able to weigh in on this discussion: Talk:PepsiCo#Thoughts_on_revision? Happy holidays, Jeff Bedford (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your suggestions! I've replied on the article talk page; though with no explicit expectations -- if you feel so inclined, I'd be happy to hear what you think. However I realize that time is limited for all of us (well, most of us), so if you'd prefer for others to follow up that works as well. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sladen's concerns[edit]

Rich: Altering {{reflist}}→{{Reflist}} is a "cosmetic change to wikicode". Could I remind you that per Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Rich Farmbrough you are indefinitely restricted from doing this. Please comply. —Sladen (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sancho arrives. Rich Farmbrough, 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for confirming that you have read this notification. Please could you confirm that you have (again) removed the erroneous (semi-)automated ruleset that caused the alteration, and that you do not intend to (knowingly) reinstate it. —Sladen (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I shall take a leaf out of Xeno's book an unwatch this page too. Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

I don't think anyone will object—if it helps you to operate more effectively within Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Rich Farmbrough. It would be useful if you could confirm that you have fixed, removed, or otherwise permanently corrected the misbehaving ruleset (I do not wish to see others block your account again when it can instead be avoided). —Sladen (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page template redirect cleanup[edit]

I am done verifying the talk page templates and I converted it from individual find and replaces to a C module. There are pluses and minues to doing this but I think its an improvement. For me it seems to work about twice the previous speed but it may be different for you. I added the code that I think you would be interested in here. A couple notes:

It seems to be a bit faster
It allows things to be processed in a certain order. This may not apply to your needs but it provides a better method for me to change the WikiProject redirects first and then perform other tasks in succession such as moving templates (like Talk header, DYK, Image needed, etc) out of the Wikiprojectbannershell), moving the BLP=yes from the bottom of the WPBS to the top, move templates above or below WPBS as appropriate, etc.
I included projects that have no redirects, had been deleted or merged into other projects. They are commented out so you can delete that section if you want. I did this in case they come back or become an issue later.
I included a section with redirect fixes for some other types of templates that appear on talk pages as well.
I am still trying to figure out how to make the diacratics fix in regex so the dozen that have them will still have to be done manually as well as the WikiProject Wierd Al Yankovic but that one is hardly worth the words to mention.
One downside; this method doesn't automatically detect upper and lower case which means I have to program it in. Not a hard thing but it will take some time. This means that the coding doesn't always recognize lower case for all the projects. I will continue to refine the logic and put out an update in the next couple days that should fix most of the common ones as well as reduce some of the code.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. --Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is really good. The main problem with S & R is that you have to choose whether it comes before or after GFs and sometimes you want some bits before and some bits after (or even before and after). Rich Farmbrough, 17:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

Blocking[edit]

Blocked 48 hours for blatant violation of Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Mass_article_creation. [141]. Honestly, do you think policy doesn't apply to you just because it's inconvenient for you? Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Rich stated as much above. This has become quite tiresome. —David Levy 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that it will matter in the slightest because it seems like the blocks will continue until Rich is either blocked indefinately or leaves but I think that blocking Rich over a 300 article run because he didn't go through BRFA is ridiculous. I just went through about 100 of them and as far as I can see that one article you found is the only one that was created in error. Which makes me wonder how many you went through before you found one. My guess is quite a few. Are we really advocating a zero defect mentality for article creation these days? Or just in Rich's case? No need to answer I already know the answer. --Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The policy is not merely about preventing errors. If you disagree with the policy, propose changing it. Rd232 ^talk 12:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is rather unwelcomed vigilantism. You all have better thinks to do than to harass Rich endlessly. I just hope you guys dont succeed in driving Rich from the project. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

- That is certainly not the intention, and you deserve a rather large WP:TROUT for suggesting it is. The policy is there, and it's there for a reason, and breaching it knowingly when there are still unresolved issues about the long-term problems with AWB use is particularly unnecessary. Rich knows I think he is a valuable contributor. Rd232 ^talk 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  - - You have a rather funny way of showing it... I suppose you are administering this block as if he was a recalcitrant child, and it's 'for his own good'? ;-)
  - Oh ... is this a punitive or a protective block? Tony (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    - Both. Rich has done this before, and may do so again soon, so it's protective as normally construed. But in addition, punishment is not vengeance; it's supposed to deter future breaches, so therefore has a longer-term protection element. Rd232 ^talk 13:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      - You can justify it however you want but it is completely unnecessary to require one specific user to get a BRFA for 300 articles. I am quite certain I could look around and find a rule amongst the thousands of contradictory rules here in WP to justify just about anything. Oh here I know, How about this one; WP:IAR. --Kumioko (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        (EC)Do you have evidence that he will do it again? Had the bot still been running fine but clearly the unauthorised bot had already done the work. The block is not protective and is rather extensive for something which could be seen as minor. Bidgee (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        Just so that its clear to all. RF didn't use a bot to do this, he used AWB. I think that is Rd's concern is that RF did not do it as abot through the BRFA process. My point is that it shouldn't be necesary for a mere 300 articles. In my opinion a one shot run of a relatively small # of articles is not bot worthy. IF this was going to be a repetetive task or had a large volume of say more than a thousand I would say a bot would be needed. I also know that the bot rules is very subjective. --Kumioko (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        The language of the relevant policy is, with good reason, "automated or semi-automated". The latter includes AWB. Rd232 ^talk 00:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
        I have commented elsewhere this is to misunderstand AWB. The tool does not determine the level of automation. Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC).
        
        Sure it does - that's the whole point. Rd232 ^talk 00:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion I believe conflates a number of dimensions:
"Automation" - this is a continuum from, if you will, typing, through pop-up suggestions, java-script search and replace, browser based spell checking, manual edits where the whole change (or most) is automated but the commit is manual, batch processes, continuous processes to automatic on-wiki processes (cat counters etc.).

"Simplicity" simple edits are not necessarily candidates for automation, nor are they necessarily automated.

"Speed" the assumption is that fast editing is automated, slow editing is manual. Personally I prefer not to wait between manual edits, automted edits can happen while I'm doing something else (like sleeping).

"Volume" not all automated tasks are high volume - notably daily updates, this is typical of FemtoBot - one of its tasks started at about 1 page per month. Similarly I manually tagged several thousand maps GFDL (because there was no AWB in those days) and did many thousands of AWB assisted album clean-ups (I forget which part I couldn't automate at the time).

"Application" You can make automated edits with Firefox and manual edits with AWB - and it can be a sensible choice of application.
For these reasons the apparently attractive idea that you have a main account, and an AWB account (and a bot account) doesn't really fly. Yes I have User:Megaphone Duck - I'm not sure if it has AWB approval - but that was just to put a thumb in a dike, while I tried (and failed) to write the encyclopedia. Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

I don't suppose any ill intent in RD232's part. Those who jump up and down pointing, and singing "Ooh he broke a rule! Ooh he broke a rule!" receive a slightly less charitable view. However the net result is less articles get fixed, including the articles/disambiguation pages in question. I actually laughed when I tried to edit Ofcom a few seconds ago - it's not really my loss that there's a misplaced capital. Also the discussions I am involved with will lack the benefit of my counsel, which would doubtless be ignored anyway. For example BOTPOL now covers human edits, assisted or not. Effectively BAG now runs Wikipedia - which I'm sure is not the intention - however it is fairly harmless, exchanging one set of absentee landlords for another. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

It's not such much a rule broken, it's on-going, it's low-level, and it's wide-spread. Other editors do their damnest to draw such situations to your attention, in order that you can focus more on the useful edits (such as fixing capitalisation on Ofcom) and less on well-intended but high-speed collateral damage—per your note here I have made one capitalisation change[142] at Ofcom#Administrative leadership, I hope it was the one you had in mind. When you get notified of an issue and choose to archive it twelve hours later without responding affirmatively, I suspect that other editors feel that there are few options available to politely get the point across. Consensual social awareness is far preferred, but if you want to work to the Wikipedia rule-book you need to accept when others hold you to it. Remember: in this situation, if you had not been undertaking bot-style assisted edits from your main account you could not have been blocked for their effects, and would have been free to make the type of manual edit you have highlighted here. It is you that has chosen to conflate manual and semi-assisted AWB edits on a single non-bot account, and this block is the fall-out. —Sladen (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to take semi-automated mass article creation discussions away from BAG, propose it (like where?). For now, that's where it is, and the task clearly falls within the ambit of the policy. I note your complaints that BRFA has been backlogged, but I see no reason why the task was so urgent it couldn't wait a month, a year, or even a decade. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and BLP issues aside, very little is actually flashing-lights-urgent; there's just a lot of stuff that needs doing. Rd232 ^talk 00:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So what your saying is that performing "bot style" edits requires that there be zero errors resulting and a BRFA? Because as far as I can see Rich was blocked for making 1 error in a 300 articles run and a couple editors are holding the bot type edit rule over his head. How do you define bot style? The rules indicate loosely that the number could be as low as 20 and Rich got blocked for 300 so I guess its somewhere in between. The reason I ask is to prevent myself from getting blocked as well since I have maintained a 1000 edit a day average for the last month. And I have enough edits in the hopper to keep that steam for the next month or so. Although I have been careful the law of averages dictates that there are at least a few in there that were incorrect. I need to clarify this before I end up on the block list for the same reasons as Rich. Your comments also define by the way you define them that BAG should be granting the access for use of AWB. I think this needs to be clarified as a major change to existing policy and practice. --Kumioko (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this will make it crystal-clear enough for you: I'd have blocked for it if there'd been zero errors. It's unapproved semi-automated mass article creation, end of. PS What? No. AWB use != mass article creation via AWB. Rd232 ^talk 00:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the error wasn't relevant to RD232's action. And I am familiar with the "edits in the hopper" scenario. Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Actually it's not that I was talking about, it's WP:MEATBOT. Basically if "we" decide that edits are "botlike" they fall within our purview. Certainly I don't forsee it being abused, but that doesn't make it good policy. At some point the community needs to take a responsible grown-up attitude to editing, weigh actions or groups of actions on their merits, not the race of the agent or agents performing them. And I would hope that this would be by bulldozing the bot ghetto, rather than sending productive people who believe WP:NOT a bureaucracy to be subject to the same rules. Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Well if you want to discuss MEATBOT further, maybe with a wider audience via RFC or whatever, fine. But the root of the point of having a bot policy is not some kind of racism against bots... it's managing the power that (automated) bots have, and high-speed semi-automated editing raises a lot of the same issues. Rd232 ^talk 00:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok so then you need to clarify "creating". Depending on how this is defined I have "created" a couple thousand in the form of Category's that were missing, redirects, DAB pages and mostly talk pages. Almost all through AWB. It seems that you are only targeting Article space pages but you need to clarify because I don't want to be blindsided by an ambiguous rule when the attention gets turned to me. --Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The policy currently only covers "articles". Dab pages are probably fine, redirects I'm less sure of, but the place to clarify that would be on the policy talk page. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is somewhat reasonable though, since it is the visible face of Wikipedia. Nonetheless the pages in question were arguably DAB's rather than articles. Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Lists are not dab pages, if that's what you meant. Rd232 ^talk 01:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I was discussing it on the BOTPOL talk page. Unfortunately that particular avenue of pleasure is currently denied to me. Rich Farmbrough, 01:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Patience. I'm sure you can use your offline time in constructive ways. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

After reading the discussion on BOTPOL it seems a 48 hour block is also a good way of diminishing Rich's credibility in your favor and allowing the discussion to cool for a couple days to reduce the amount of comments. But that's just my perception of the situation. I do find it rather odd and suspicious timing though. --Kumioko (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you heard of WP:AGF? Are you suggesting that clear policy violations should be ignored because (a) the contributor is otherwise very valuable (b) they might have something to add to a current policy discussion? PS Noting your specific failure of AGF is particularly egregious since not far above I suggested Rich could, if he wanted, seek a wider audience for the policy discussion, eg via RFC. Rd232 ^talk 08:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about some code I wrote[edit]

This is going to sound like a strange question but here goes. I wrote some code to replace various WikiProject redirects to the actual template: see here. My question is in regards to dealing with casing. I know that using regex I can put [Xx] to look for upper and lower case of letter X (X being whatever letter). Is there a way that you know of to make this so all of the whole group is case insensitive rather than having to designate each one individually? Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this help [143]? In particular, adding "RegexOptions.IgnoreCase" as a third arg. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats awesome thanks I'll test that out right now. --Kumioko (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That worked great and I have updated the code. Thanks again for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just had to do the reverse with all my redirect stuff, because REFLIST => Reflist was picking up reflist and causing the imminent death of the universe. Rich Farmbrough, 07:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

Most of the problem people were having with yours was that you were doing it as a standalone edit and you were removing blank spaces. In the case of reflist I would have just protected it in reflist format temporarily and then unprotected it at the end of the edit group but thats just one way to do it. Although at this point I think it woudln't matter what edit you performed, theyll find a problem with it. --Kumioko (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at my calendar, and was not surprised to note that it was 'criticise Rich Farmbrough week' this week. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

Illumnos concatenated/portmanteau
Activities and Recreation Center

Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

(Done)

Fram[edit]

Can someone look at this rather strange reversion. The edit summary suggests that a real example is somehow wrong. I don't know what Fram's problem is exactly, but there clearly is one. Rich Farmbrough, 05:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

I think what Fram is saying is that it is incorrect to say that a page like Wikipedia get lots of hits, so it won't take very long to "pay-off". Because what actually matters is the number of hits (or rather clicks) that particular link you are changing gets, rather than the page as a whole. Anyway, I'll point him towards your talk page for you. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK nevermind I'll go to the page itself presently. More important is the blanket revert, instead of just the bit he takes issue with. Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Auto link foreign language translations of articles[edit]

Could you implement my idea?

http://m.jguk.org/2010/11/wikipedia-auto-link-article.html

Now3d (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It is actually rather rare for these not to be linked in a complete graph. There are many robots roaming the interwikis and adding the (usually) appropriate links. The hope is, though, that technical improvements will allow a single link from each language version to a central repository of links, this will save millions of edits per year.

Simple Wikipedia has been around for a long time, and is a very Good Thing.

Rich Farmbrough.

13 December 2010 10:34

AN discussion concerning SmackBot[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Your comments would be very welcome there. Sandstein 12:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Curious actions of User:Megaphone Duck. Doc talk 23:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I just hope you don't work for Cyberdyne. Bots gone wild... ;> Doc talk 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: this was a bug where the correct change was displayed but a blank page was written. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC).

bump post on my talk page[edit]

Rich farmbrough was that you, if so sorry mate but i thought that was a new user being unconstructive--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I've blocked this account (bot?) for blanking pages. Nakon 21:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

This is your only warning. If you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Farix (t | c) 22:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Curious actions of User:Megaphone Duck. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:Megaphone Duck by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A page you edited[edit]

Dear Editor,

You recently added a few flags to the HyperOffice page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperoffice. I had consulted with you way back on 23rd April 2009 even before I set up the page. I had referenced a number of entries in the same domain (online collaboration) before setting up the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebEx, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box.net, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoho, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Desktop, and had it vetted by a number of editors and users before it went live. The article is exactly the same in tone as these other articles. Please reconsider your edits in light of the above. wikiliscious (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot unblock[edit]

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

Could we have a link to the discussion? That explanation does so little to help me understand the background that I am filled with pain and undying agony. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is very little specific information here, the block log mentions an editing restriction, but does not explain what that restriction actually is. The unblock request is also lacking in specific detail, so reviewers who are not active at WP:BAG, which I would guess are the majority of unblock reviewers, have no way to judge either the block or the unblock request. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Smackbot and Rich Farmbrough. Sandstein 12:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I did some action to move us forward. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Are these the relevant editing restrictions? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As this request and the wider issues are actively being discussed at the link given by Sandstein, it may be appropriate to procedurally decline this unblock request for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We all love wider issues... This all started with the, perhaps foolish, capitalisation of Cite templates. It is ludicrous to me that 3 months later anyone takes the slightest interest in a few effectively null edits. We should be moving forward, not backwards. Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Rich, I'll say the same thing to you as I say at any unblock request or ANI posting: please make a case for yourself, and help us to understand the history, in as few words as possible, but with the most clarification possible, using diffs, paraphrases, etc. We can't decide until we know the whole history. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, Rich, I see you mentioned something about re-writing this in perl. I strongly encourage you to do so, if we could get this into a "proper" programming language, it would make life so much easier :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagger updated[edit]

As of rev 7500:

FixSyntax: Catches more unbalanced brackets
Tagger: When no cats from existing page by API call but genfixes adds people categories, don't tag uncat

The latter fixes the problem of double-runs in many biography pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hello, sir, I'm a new user and I don't know how to start... anything. Could you help? SpaceDiver221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

OK. Thanks! SpaceDiver221 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

STOP[edit]

The edit summaries are not appropriate or intelligable Active Banana (^bananaphone 01:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Various[edit]

Can you please edit User:SmackBot#Tasks_and_authorisations and make clear(er) which tasks are one-off, inactive, still active? I am losing track.

I asked MSGJ to unblock SmackBot. The blocking reason isn't valid anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I need to do some more work on that. Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

AWB error[edit]

The dating of the Use DMY template goes wrong in your AWB edits, returning Use dmy dates from {{subst:currentmonthname}} {{subst:currentyear}}, e.g. here, here and here. Fram (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This was fixed already in rev 7462. Version 5.2.0.0 (rev 7471) doesn't have this bug. We re now in rev 7487. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm on 7487. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas[edit]

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it --- e.g. you have made the article: The Lord of the Rings (1955 radio series)) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unapproved automated/semi-automated creation of pages[edit]

As I've told you time and again there are reasons we have processes in place to approve these kinds of task, rather than immediately creating hundreds of pages using an untested method. For example, scroll down this page which you created a couple of seconds ago, and you should notice a rather obvious problem with it. I suggest you go through your creations and review them properly, and in future you review them (and get them peer reviewed) before you start putting them into the main space. I hate to be blunt, but what will it take for you to actually start following bot policy - which the majority of the time is good practice and makes sense? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not untested.
No page is created fully fledged.
There will be a significant amount of work tidying these pages. Flaws in categorisation are a key reason, and are much more visible on-wiki than off. I have already made many fixes to categorization of other pages as a result of this work.
As far as Bot Policy goes gaining BRFA for a piddly little 300 page manual task would be a waste of time, even in an ideal world. Furthermore BRFA was backlogged until about a week ago, with tasks taking a month or more to get a response. Now we have a flood, which is good, but a regular, rapid, responsive system would be more useful. Rich Farmbrough, 08:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

1) Well evidently it's not tested well enough is it? It's needs to be peer-reviewed, rather than only tested by yourself. 2) Not an excuse for making mistakes which are easily avoidable. 3) That work should be done before they are created in the mainspace. Adding the image files (and templates, which I don't really think should be in those lists) could have been easily avoided by filtering the lists to articles only. 4) Bot policy isn't just about BRfA, I think it would be a great idea for you to create these pages in your userspace, allow them to be fixed and then move them to the mainspace. That it's slow isn't an excuse to ignore it. What makes you more special than the other users waiting in the queue?

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 49 uh waiting? it's not a queue it's a lottery. Rich Farmbrough, 21:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

And please don't tell me that was a manual task when it so plainly wasn't. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "peer review" would be a little over the top. However it all seems academic now. Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Stamford[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

happy holidays
from mono
wishing you a joyful new year

MonoALT (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, what an amazing photograph.

Actions of 5/6 May 1945[edit]

A process argument has opened on this page, to which you have contributed. Your comments are requested. The discussion is here (duplicated to all editors of this page) Xyl 54 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah well I am in article creation purdah right now. It seems a simple case of "redundancy is good" rather than "forks are bad" though. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC).

defaultsort[edit]

You seem to try to fix DEFAULTSORT invalid entries but... you don't. Check [144] and many others where the comma was missing. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is a comma needed, even in cases like this? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comma separates surname from name. I don't know the rule for Korean, Chinese names by heart. -- 01:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tx. Chinese convention is to put the family name first and the given name after, without commas. The example I gave is typical, as are Mao Zedong and Liu Xiaobo, to give other examples. I think it is also the case with names from Japan (and many other Asian countries), Hungary. Is it not redundant to use commas in these cases? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SUR Mao Zedong is sorted as Mao, Zedong. I think the reason is to separate Name 2nd name Surname from Name Surname 2nd Surname. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes the purpose of the exercise was to look at some 29,000 people articles with no comma in the DEFAULTSORT. Unfortunately I became so paranoid about he editing restriction that that got rather left by the wayside. I'm not sure that the comma is actually a good idea, I fear much hinges on the human name sorting decisions being made based on the paper, or at leas human targeted, methods of keying sorts. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

BAGBot: Your bot request SmackBot 38[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

bot edits not tagged as such[edit]

Noticed this edit not tagged as a bot edit. Thought you'd want to know. --Muhandes (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll see how build 601 fares. Rich Farmbrough, 08:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Fixed, good catch. Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

Bzuk (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Happy Holidays!

Dear Rich Farmbrough,
Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;)
Love,
--Meaghan [talk] ≈ 15:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: WNSC move[edit]

Thanks much! Am off to do the templates, etc. We hope (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Diacratics in talk page banner templates[edit]

Not sure if you knew or if there is anything that can be done about it but I have noticed in almost every case when the WikiProject Banner template contains punctuation or diactratics it breaks. Two example are WikiProject Pokemon and WikiProject Children's literature. In both cases and others like them your script stopped after it got to Pok and Children. --Kumioko (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did know, but not about those examples. Couple of others I either fixed up or the non-alpha redirect was orphaned. Rich Farmbrough, 17:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

For the diacratic examples like the é in Pokémon is the \ for regex the right identifyer in regex or is there something else I need to do to identify those? --Kumioko (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention that I found a few redirects that look like this: Template:WikiProject:Rowing. I think we should do a sweep and find these rogues and wipe them away. In every case I have found so far there were no articles that linked to them. --Kumioko (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I have done a couple like that. Rich Farmbrough, 19:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

Needs a smarter regex is all. Rich Farmbrough, 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:All articles to be expanded[edit]

Category:All articles to be expanded, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

United States records in masters athletics[edit]

Since you have taken it upon yourself to rename the article, you obviously have administrative rights. Could you also place a redirect on this article as "American records in masters athletics"? That is a likely word substitution. Trackinfo (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I beleive move is still open to any confirmed user. Also creating redirects, however, 'tis done. Rich Farmbrough, 11:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

AWB[edit]

I am trying to get AWB's external processing started and use a perl script. How to I get a pl script to process a wiki page? Snowman (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Set program or script to "perl", then choose suitable name for the file, I chose test.txt, then set up the command line arguments, again in my case "test.pl < test.txt > test.txt". Exactly how it works is dependent on your script, for example you could call a batch file which deals with calling perl and file renaming. I'm not sure I ever used the system in anger though. Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC).

Using that style, then I presume that a file named "test.txt" is needed and a pl named "test.pl" is needed. Will this get the article lines into an array in a working pl script? I presume that I would need to write the processed file to the "test.txt" file, or can it be a different output file? Snowman (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

my $soursefile;
$soursefile="test.txt";
# print "$soursefile\n";
open FILETEXT, "$soursefile";
@soursefile = <FILETEXT>;
close (FILESTEXT);

That looks good to me. No need to quote the variable. I haven't used the file label in an array context my self but I believe it works. (Source is spelled with a "c" by the way.)

Yes the output file needs to be the same, you can simply overwrite the input file, or do re-naming jiggery-pokery. Rich Farmbrough, 00:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Thank you. With only one file to use, the file name could have been written in directly. Using an array means that the page is divided into portions with line ends at the end, which I see are "/012" on my Windows system. I usually open and the close a file a soon as possible, but that usually means reopening the file later. It wrote to the file and I see that the changes are shown on the diff screen in AWB. Snowman (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way of passing the file/image name or page name to the script? Snowman (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes use the "prepend" function in AWB and add %%title%%, then strip this off in the perl. Rich Farmbrough, 15:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC).

I had already tried that, but it does not work. I think that the external script sees the file before AWB, or at least before AWB prepends the page name. Reedy wrote something at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#External_processing, but I do not understand C#. Do you have any other ideas. Snowman (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's an order effect. Solution is, depending on number of pages, 2 pass or feature request. Rich Farmbrough, 06:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Actually I'll put the FR in anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 06:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43[edit]

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 36[edit]

Template: Approved.. *

Edits by:

Jarry1250 at 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 17:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Jarry1250 at 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 39[edit]

Template: Approved.. *

Edits by:

Jarry1250 at 16:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 16:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Jarry1250 at 16:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 16:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40[edit]

Template: Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

EdoDodo at 11:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by EdoDodo at 11:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by EdoDodo at 11:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by EdoDodo at 11:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

ISO_639_name_XXX templates[edit]

Howdy. Posting this here as you seem to be (or have been) the main creator of the ISO_639_name_XX templates - please do let me know if there's somewhere more relevant I've overlooked.

As part of an unrelated task I've generated a list of attempts to transclude missing templates starting 'ISO_639_name_'. We've around 3100 of them, ranging from the most popular Template:ISO_639_name_zh-Hani (422 attempted transclusions) down to 320 or so templates with only one attempted translcusion. The former and a few dozne like it represent either missing templates or a misunderstanding of thier purpose while the latter are probably mostly typos.

Would the details of these links be useful to you or anyone else ? - TB (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

BAGBot: Your bot request SmackBot 40[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Jarry1250 at 11:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 11:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Jarry1250 at 11:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 11:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37[edit]

Template: Approved for extended trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 10:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 14:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 15:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 14:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
MBisanz at 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Jarry1250 at 11:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 11:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Jarry1250 at 11:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 11:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40[edit]

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

Edits by:

Jarry1250 at 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Jarry1250 at 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot[edit]

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

Edits by:

Jarry1250 at 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Jarry1250 at 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser[edit]

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Jarry1250 at 19:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 19:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 16:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Jarry1250 at 19:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 19:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 20:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010[edit]

News and notes: Wikipedia articles expert-reviewed by Encyclopedia of Life, and more

In the news: Confusion about Wikileaks continues, Wikipedia vs. Britannica in India, and more

Rencontres Wikimédia: Wikimedia and the cultural sector: two days of talks in Paris.

WikiProject report: WikiProject Algae

Features and admins: The best of the week

Election report: The community has spoken

Arbitration report: Requested amendment re Pseudoscience case

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

FemtoBot 6 project task[edit]

I would like to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Algae and Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary Medicine to this bot's project updates. How do I go about this? --Kleopatra (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Added. Rich Farmbrough, 09:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Algae/Recent_changes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Veterinary_medicine/Recent_changes

Rich Farmbrough, 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Could you also add Wikipedia:WikiProject United States please. This seems fairly close to what I had asked about above. --Kumioko (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good. I thought it was close but not close enough. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Here. Rich Farmbrough, 15:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks. This is a big help. Would it be possible to do it for talk pages as well? --Kumioko (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh. I suppose so... Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Done. Here. Rich Farmbrough, 09:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

I would like to request the same for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dams. Thanks Rich! Ng.j (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Here.
And here. Rich Farmbrough, 06:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Many thanks! Ng.j (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41[edit]

Template: {{BAG assistance needed}}. *

Edits by:

H3llkn0wz at 12:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 12:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 13:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by H3llkn0wz at 12:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 12:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42[edit]

Template: {{BAG assistance needed}}. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 19:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 16:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 19:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 12:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 12:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Half price's talk page.
Message added 13:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of elections in year[edit]

Howdy. Handy lists, but it looks like your bot picked up quite a few election articles in user-space. I've unlinked them for now on the assumption that this wasn't your intention. - TB (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, there is still more to, but I got blocked over them, which rather dampened my enthusiasm. Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Blocked user's name change request[edit]

Hi! Just wanted to ask a clarifying question - the user you unblocked, User:ICIWORLD, had requested a name change in the unblock template to Hojuhanguk. Were you (or someone else) going to go ahead and do that, or does he/she need to file a request at WP:CHU? Thanks!

-- Joren (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes they should request at CHU. Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 20 December 2010[edit]

News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief

In the news: Faulty story urges for advertising on Wikipedia; brief news

Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland

Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?

WikiProject report: Majestic Titans

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38[edit]

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

Edits by:

H3llkn0wz at 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by H3llkn0wz at 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 14:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at [[User talk:Trackinfo (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)|User talk:Trackinfo (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37[edit]

Template: Approved for extended trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 11:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 11:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 11:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38[edit]

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

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

William J. Mann - putting a colon in front of template names, breaking templates. Yworo (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks, fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

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

Edits by:

Mr.Z-man at 04:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Mr.Z-man at 04:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Mr.Z-man at 04:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Mr.Z-man at 04:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

response to a SmackBot edit that seems to need a response[edit]

Dear Richard Farmbrough,

It seems to me that the recent SmackBot edit of Extremal principles in non-equilibrium thermodynamics is partly the work of a real person as well as of a robot; I have to say I don't really understand this bot process, and perhaps I am misinterpreting things.

Howsoever. The edit complains: "This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2010)"

The subject matter here is conceptually difficult, and there are no simple answers that I have found by reading the literature within the scope of my admittedly limited ability.

The subject matter here attracts writing from people who think they understand it, but are really putting a point of view that I think is one of the many pseudo-scientific '-isms'. The serious experts, regrettably, don't write here, because they are publishing elsewhere. I regret that I cannot write a crisp dogmatic exposition of the subject; indeed I have my doubts that there are many who could do so. So far as I understand, the acronym Wiki stands for "what I know is". If I could write something more "encyclopaedic", I would do so, but that would make me a serious expert and I would probably not be writing in the Wikipedia on this subject. I have simply tried to assemble and summarize the most expert opinions I can find. I think it just a little over the top for a bot to complain that I am writing a "personal reflection or essay", and to demand a "cleanup". If, by some other means than such a bot tag, you can find a real expert to improve the article, I will be glad. But I fear that this bot tag is more likely to be read by pseudo-experts as an open invitation to write their points of view, than to be effective in persuading a real expert to do a real cleanup. It can be very tiresome to deal with pseudo-experts, who are often very convinced that they have "the answer", but in fact don't really even understand the problem. Therefore I would like to respectfully ask you to remove the bot tag, because I don't envisage it actually leading to a better article, and indeed I envisage that it might do more harm than good.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, all smackbot did was add the date to the template. This link compares smackbot's edit with the one right before (this is called a diff). The tag {{essay}} was already there. It was added by a human user in this edit. If you contact them, I'm sure they would be happy to explain their reasoning. I hope this helps! --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful advice.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bishop's Stopford[edit]

Hi, I see you have been tweaking this article again but you still haven't cited a source for the bit about "forgiveness" vs. caning and in particular the ceremony of the two pairs of shorts. A year or two ago you told me you would get round to this. As it stands, it reads like original research. -- Alarics (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough, 10:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

Thanks for flagging up uncited claim. I have rewritten until/unless I can get a citation 89.240.199.232 (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)!

Thank you. Likely SmackBot merely dated the tag, though. Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

BAGBot: Your bot request Mirror Bot[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Steven Schmidt[edit]

A suggestion has been made that your recent edit to Sarah Palin be moved to Public image of Sarah Palin. Please consider the move and your participation in the discussion at Talk:Sarah Palin#Steven Schmidt. Buster Seven Talk 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"SharpevilleNo"?[edit]

Hi Rich - is this a mistake, or is there something I've missed in the discussion? Shouldn't this simply have been moved to Sharpeville? Grutness...wha? 05:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. For some reason text is getting entered in fields after the caret has been moved elsewhere. A new form of lag I suppose. Rich Farmbrough, 08:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

Happy, happy[edit]

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Joy joy! It's cold here but we had fireworks too! Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

BAGBot: Your bot request Femto Bot 4[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Void albums[edit]

Just curious... You placed a {{hangon}} tag on Category:Void albums - did you mean to? Did you have some reason that category should be kept? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 02:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Footnotes[edit]

Portal[edit]

"perhaps you would do the featured wildlife section?" Huh? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What about it? I still have no clue what you're trying to say because you're not giving me any context. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I think you might want to see Template_talk:!#Edit_request_from_Cymru.lass.2C_28_December_2010. Debresser (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Template talk:!.
Message added 04:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again. (Thank you

--- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Templates {{Today (mdy)}} and {{Today (dmy)}} reversed?[edit]

Hi Rich. I was thinking about using the above templates which you wrote, but they seem reversed. {{Today (mdy)}} gives 2 January 2011 (live template here: May 1, 2024), and {{Today (dmy)}} gives January 2, 2011 (live template here: 1 May 2024). As I understand it, 'mdy' format should put the month first, see Template:Use mdy dates. I'm happy to reverse them, but thought I'd check with you first. CuriousEric^Talk 23:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah! Well spotted! .... Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Fixed,I simply made them redirects to each other. Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

They look good now, thanks. CuriousEric^Talk 05:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: {{BAG assistance needed}}. *

Edits by:

H3llkn0wz at 11:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 11:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 11:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
H3llkn0wz at 11:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 11:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 10:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by H3llkn0wz at 11:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 11:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Li Ang[edit]

Li Ang

You added ^{[self-published source?]} to this article. The reference is to an original article. I am not the author and the wikipedia article was not written by the same person. I think this article might be lifted from the article I cited. My point is my citation is to a bonafide article and any prob is with the wiki text. Mark^Dask 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 17:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

ooh right - I'm learning - thanks. Mark^Dask 18:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 3.
Message added 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A question about stub templates[edit]

I have an idea for a consolidation of the stub templates relating to US and I wanted to solicit your opinion first. What I would like to do is make it so that we use a central template as a base and then use parameter to denote the substub so to speak. For example if we say that {{US-stub}} is the main stub template and then we make a parameter for Biography then we could eliminate that {{US-bio-stub}} template. I know this makes the logic a bit more complicated and makes the template a little more complicated to use but I think in the end it would simplify the use of the several hundred stub templates that are in use for the US related articles. I also want to clarify that I know that we cannot consolidate 400 templates into 1 but there are about 30 that relate just to high level US so I think if even some are consolidated it will be an improvement. --Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Support the idea, but probably not a good idea to do it just for US articles. I think the whole system would be more manageable if parameters were fed to a single template, e.g. {{stub|US}} or {{stub|US-bio}}. By the way, you might be interested in Template:Multiple stub which has been listed at SfD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm well, I have considered the fundamental question "separate templates v.s parameters" many times. In this case I am not convinced the case for moving to parameters has been made

The cognitive load is the same, whether you have {Stub|US|biog}, {Stub-US|biog} or {US-biog-stub}
The stub-sorters are basically a team of 3 to 4 people, PamD, Grutness, Her Pegship and one other. They know the stub templates intimately.
The stub templates are reasonably consistent, we should not have an enclave of inconsistency.

There are possibilities, using a permutation template and a translation structure (and given that stubs are de-facto small) it might be possible to create a stub template that allowed a hand-full of keywords and categorized accordingly. This would however create a lot of problems too. Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for the detailed reply. I am rather on the fence with it myself. On the one hand it seems unnecessary to have over 200 templates related to US stubs but on the other I also know that it would have downsides as well. I guess I will have to think on this and some more research into how big (or not big) the issue is. thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BASEPAGENAME[edit]

Template:BASEPAGENAME has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 06:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Expand section section[edit]

section parameter in expand section :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Very old version. This should not happen anymore since the template is being deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

There should be no Expand|section anymore since I replaced them all. I reported it just for your information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your AWB changes to US State are being redirected[edit]

I patrol all communities in Iowa and I just checked the edits you are changing to US state when it should be U.S. state. Just letting you know. --RifeIdeas Talk 02:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 02:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

(ec) The authoritative Chicago MoS has reversed its previous insistence on U dot S dot, and has now banned them. Some titles retain the dots and will take years to catch up, no doubt. Please see this thread. Tony (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to but in here but was this change from U.S. to US addressed somewhere like the village pump (policy) maybe. I know that the Chicago MoS is a respected standard but I see no reason why we on WP Have to follow it and I also prefer the use of U.S. When I reviewed the Discussion on the MOS page linked to above it appeared as though it garnered only minimal activity and I would hardly consider that a concensus. Before we go spending thousands or millions of edits changing these from one to the other, likely only to have it change again when the update the manual again in 3 or 4 years, perhaps we should discuss it a little more...Any thoughts? --Kumioko (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a Wiki newbie and am just learning so I have no opinion. But thanks for the threads I read, I have learned a little more.--RifeIdeas Talk 03:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

We value (almost) all contributions on this talk page! Rich Farmbrough, 03:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Yes, this is a second order decision, I have not moved the article itself. I merely chose a redirect as a preferable target to either the article or the old target, to link "state" to. The reasoning is on RifeIdeas talk page. Since this is a piped link the page display is not affected, merely a little overhead traversing the redirect. The belief is that the article will move some time in the next few years. Of course the Moores Law hypothesis might suggest that it's better to wait for it to move if it later than X months^{[US State 1]}, and change the then redirect, however WP is very resistant to allowing redirect updates, due to some basic mis-understandings. Rich Farmbrough, 03:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Im sorry Im still confused, where was the consensus that we should start changing all these? I still think this is something that should be discussed first. --Kumioko (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not changing U.S. to US. Rich Farmbrough, 06:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

No, you are adding a piped link to a redirect to hundreds or thousands of pages, when you could just as easily have used the piped link to the correct page instead. For someone so busy eliminating redirects, it seems a bit strange to use one, since it has no benefit and a clear disadvantage. Fram (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DRV[edit]

I opened a DRV here on the Sarah Palin thing for you. The restoring was out of line, but instead of starting a wheel war I'm just throwing it here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't seem worth a DRV to me. Rich Farmbrough, 03:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Define what falls under the responsibilities of the Bot Approval group[edit]

I created a discussion at Define what falls under the responsibilities of the Bot Approval group regarding some of the comments made here so we can put a stop to this nonsense once and for all. --Kumioko (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40[edit]

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

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Jarry1250 at 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Jarry1250 at 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41[edit]

Template: {{BAG assistance needed}}. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 12:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 13:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 12:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 12:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of {{Expand}}[edit]

Most instances I've found are replaceable with {{expand-section}} or {{incomplete}} so that's what I'm doing. I'm not zapping it unless the article doesn't seem to have any readily obvious need for expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I didn't suppose you were zapping them. The template was TfD'd in April, overturned on DRV. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Hint: Don't use templates in section headers, as it makes them inaccessible through the default edit summaries. Hey Mid (contribs) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Not sure what you meant to do. --Muhandes (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got to wonder to... how are you running that search? With or with out respect to template? - J Greb (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a little bug crept into the regex. Need to smarten those rules a little in other ways too, meanwhile I'll turn them off. Rich Farmbrough, 09:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Mr.Z-man at 04:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 10:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 11:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:$1$2[edit]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Template:$1$2, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

ZOMG! Rich Farmbrough, 09:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

My apologies, Rich. I should have at least turned off the notification (in Twinkle), and probably not specified the CSD as "pure vandalism". You see, I didn't realise you were the creator. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Like is say, no worries, brought a smile to my face, and the template is better gone. Rich Farmbrough, 09:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Robert S. Wood[edit]

Hello! I am trying to correct/amend the Robert S. Wood page where you left two notes about phrases that needed clarification. The first was a quote calling The Global War Games "the largest gaming series in U.S. history." That was part of a larger description of Wood's responsibilities all linked to a reference, but to clarify I added an additional link to that reference right after the statement. Is that enough? (The description was a direct quote.) The second was to the phrase, "all U.S. Armed Forces Senior Service Schools," where you ask if that is the same as military service academies. The answer is no: the academies are undergraduate (West Point, Annapolis, etc), whereas "senior" is the term used (in the reference but also in general) for post-graduate military schools, like the Army, Navy, Air Force colleges of "command and general staff" and "war colleges." Unfortunately there is not one wiki phrase to incorporate them all like there is for the undergraduate schools -- although I guess I could try to create a page for "U.S. Military Senior Service Schools. For now, though, would it be enough to add the same reference to this phrase again or to explain in parenthesis what I just explained here? It is a description readily understood by most people familiar with military education, which is why it was used that way in the speaker's bio from which I "lifted" those words -- but I understand if you are saying that it should be readily understandable even by people unfamiliar with the military. Is that what you are saying? I would like to get this right, so with this additional info I've added here, perhaps you could either tell me what good phrasing might be, or feel free to add it yourself? In any event, I thank you for helping to make this a better article!! NearTheZoo (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm still trying to deal with the critiques of the Robert S. Wood article. If I understand the edits now (hope I do - but apologize if I don't!), you are the editor who added the "peacock" banner. Is that right? If so, could you either reconsider and take it down or let me know what specific facts you consider unverified or unverifiable? I think that every fact or quote in the entire article comes directly from another referenced source that I found by googling his name. Appreciate the help! NearTheZoo (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

STOP - Employee Assistance Programs 3 x "dubious-discuss" tags[edit]

Hi,

Re: Employee assistance program and section "Workplace Bullying & In-House EAP Concerns"

On Jan 3 you inserted 3 [dubious – discuss] tags in my edit "Workplace Bullying & In-House EAP Concerns" section. I've place the references to support my tagged edits on the discussion page as requested.

Please review and please consider removing them.

Thanks,

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

[X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 22:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

These edits by User:Cknoepke insert the dubious tags. But looks like you have already discussed with him. Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

STOP[edit]

In the article Special relativity, SmackBot changed "v_0" to "v 0" inside a <math> (in-line TeX, not display). This changed a correct formula to an incorrect one in the second modified paragraph. See this diff. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 06:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Fixed build 602, releasing build now. Rich Farmbrough, 11:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Smack bot complaint[edit]

Hi Rich, please stop using Smackbot for changes such as this - it's an utterly worthless edit and a complete waste of server time. I have my own preferences for how to format refs in articles where I'm the principal contributor, and it doesn't match up with your preferences - in this case I don't space "=", but I do place a space before "|" as that usually produces sensible wrapping for me when editing refs. It wouldn't matter so much if Smackbot did this for every parameter, but to do it just for the 'date' parameter, while leaving the others in my preferred style is just plain odd. --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That is slightly odd, I tend to not put spaces around the date "=" I thought, I'll have to look at this in more detail. Rich Farmbrough, 04:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich, much appreciated. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Mr.Z-man at 04:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 10:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 11:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 10:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Empty section[edit]

Cool. How do you do it? I would like to add this to AWB's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the regexs as typo rules - they are a bit ad-hoc.

<Typo word="<enter a name>" find="([^=])(=====)\s*(\n)+\s*{{expand( section[^}]*}})\s*\n+(={2,5}[^=])" replace="$1$2$3{{Empty$4$3$5" />
<Typo word="<enter a name>" find="([^=])(====)\s*(\n)+\s*{{expand( section[^}]*}})\s*\n+(={2,4}[^=])" replace="$1$2$3{{Empty$4$3$5" />
<Typo word="<enter a name>" find="([^=])(==)\s*(\n)+\s*{{expand( section[^}]*}})\s*\n+(={2,3}[^=])" replace="$1$2$3{{Empty$4$3$5" />
<Typo word="<enter a name>" find="([^=])(==)\s*(\n)+\s*{{expand( section[^}]*}})\s*\n+(==[^=])" replace="$1$2$3{{Empty$4$3$5" />

They fail on header depths greater than 5, and on last sections, and on sections that are empty of content but have other tags.

Rich Farmbrough, 11:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For truly empty sections

([^=]={5})\s*(\n)+(={2,5}[^=])

$1$2{{Empty section|date=January 2011}}$2$2$3

rpt for 4,3,2

Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

Request for comment[edit]

I have proposed the renaming of a category, and wanted to know if you would consider commenting on the proposed renaming over at that link. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

dmy[edit]

Just noticed your AWB edit to Fetlar that included the hidden cat "Use dmy dates from January 2011". I have looked at this cat and its parent and I can't make much sense out of it. Is the implication is that in some unspecified time period a bot may run that changes the dates? Yrs, perplexed. Ben Mac Dui 10:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The implication in the wording of the category certainly is that, maybe on a yearly basis, the articles would be automatically reviewed. What would happen if apparently out-of-spec date formats were found is un-discussed as far as I know. Options would include

producing a report (which needn't be annual)
talk page notes
clean up tag
auto fixing

or a combination. Rich Farmbrough, 11:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Seems a shade odd. I don't know if you intentionally added the cat or AWB just did it automatically, but I can't see the benefit in listing an article with dmy usage, when this is perfectly acceptable. "After being tagged, usually manually, and bearing in mind article evolution, a bot can be sent around to clean up formatting" says the parent cat.

1) Do you have any idea where the discussion to create the cat is?

2) I can't think of a good reason to keep the cat at Fetlar if, by accident or some mysterious process, it results in a bot changing things that don't need changed.

Any further intelligence gratefully received. Ben Mac Dui 13:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

chlry cole[edit]

chrly cole Iam victoria leader from victoria leader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.180.251 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

well, that's nice. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

"Funs" Victoria Leader seems to think that "chrly cole" is reading her comments. I think we should block this person. Anemone Projectors 20:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Storm surge globalization tag[edit]

I've made attempts to make the article less US-centered, including an example of a European storm in the lead. Let me know if this is sufficient for the tag's removal. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. The TC project folk get a little edit happy when significant events transpire in real time, which is probably why all that 2005-2008 US-centered information got in there in the first place. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. It's an interesting project. Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Roman pipe[edit]

Hi. You suppressed interwiki link between and . Some people and bot are fighting to shrink this article, against opinion of membres of . For myself, i understand french and italian, if italian article is shorter than french, the topic is the same. So interwiki link is pertinent. Regards 92.145.183.148 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

is a redirect to . The former would be a great interwiki for , the latter is not. Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

I understand there is some disagreement about the name/content for the French article. How you split the subject matter is open to question, and I'm sure you (at fr:wp) will resolve it one way or another. However the interwikis should be:

en:Roman lead pipe

on the one hand, and

en:Roman lead pipe inscription

on the other. Clearly these are different subjects. Best wishes. Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Translate bot[edit]

Not sure what this bot's purpose is (you're probably just staking your claim) but if it's purpose were to translate other foreign language articles, all content generated would be deleted under db-a2. I think the purpose of that deletion policy is to prevent the translators from being overworked but I've been told that db-a2 even applies to translated content. Marcus Qwertyus 07:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah, I created a one line stub in it:wp and it was deleted as auto translated. Thanks for the heads up. It won't be doing bad translations. Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

Db-a2 applies to untranslated articles. Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Estelle Desanges albums[edit]

Category:Estelle Desanges albums, which you created, has been nominated for 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. Fences&Windows 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Louise Camuto[edit]

HI I saw that you said a citation is needed for Louise Camuto's education. I work for her and know for a fact that she attended these schools. It is listed as well on her personal linkedin profile. What will suffice as a source for this since there is not going to be any website to confirm this??--65.51.232.210 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi 65.51.232.210,

Rich Farmbrough wasn't actually the one who tagged your article as needing sources -- a bot (an automated program that performs necessary but dull changes automatically) that he runs put date markers on citation tags that I had added to the article. Essentially you will need references that meet Wikipedia's standards for sources. This is seen as particularly important in the case of an article such as Louise Camuto, because it is a biography of a living person. However, I'm afraid that a linkedin page won't be sufficient.

I know Wikipedia's policies and formatting conventions can be a bit daunting (and indeed annoying), so if you've got any queries, please just ask here on my talk page.

Thanks Arthur Holland (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Smackbot suddenly too prompt[edit]

First let me give a long-overdue thanks for all of smackbot's important work. But... has something changed to cause it to do what it does more quickly after an article has been human-edited? All of a sudden I find that, after making one edit, if I make another edit to the same article soon after I get an edit conflict against Smackbot's addition of datestamps and so on e.g. see January 6 in [145]. I don't remember this happening before, and it's very annoying. Could Smackbot to wait some fixed period before acting, to avoid this? I don't know if 5 minutes, or 5 hours, would be more appropriate. Thanks. EEng (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm it runs more frequently now, but I can build in a specific delay. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

What do you plan to use for the delay? Anomie ⚔ 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Also, AWB has an option to skip pages tagged with {{inuse}}, dunno if Smackbot uses it? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you remember it's running in perl now not AWB - all that good stuff goes to waste. Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Inuse added in build p603. Rich Farmbrough, 15:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, checking for inuse is good, but I don't think it's enough. It's common to make a series of changes to the same article one right after the other, without adding inuse. (On the Morison article I happened to have added inuse, but only because I feared controversy and I wanted peoplet to see the end result before the battle begins). Why not just wait, say, 15 or 60 minutes? For complicated edits, adding cites and so on, I might easily go 15+ minutes between starting the edit and saving, so I'd prefer 60 minutes. Not knowing all the things Smackbot does, I don't know how much of the benefit of what it does is lost by delaying a longer vs shorter time -- certainly the datestamping of need-cite tags and so on doesn't suffer by a delay. Also, notice that by waiting, fewer resources are wasted by Smackbot scanning and re-scanning the same article, and change histories are less cluttered with repeated Smackbot entries. EEng (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I'm curious to see the code (for my own edification). Is it publicly available anywhere? Anomie ⚔ 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that 10 minutes from the last update be sufficient. --Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree for the reason already stated: it's easy for an edit to take over 10 minutes. In fact, if the rule is (say) 10 minutes, then if you save a change, spend 5 minutes reading over the new version, then spend 6 minutes editing, that's 11 minutes from the last human edit, and you'll be 1 minutes behind Smackbot, thus getting an edit conflict. This is a new phenomenon and maybe I'm over-worrying, but if the problem continues I'll need to ask: what's lost by having the bot wait a generous amount of time? But let's wait and see. EEng (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would also vote for at least ten minutes before SmackBot intervenes. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would not embarrass myself by letting Anomie see my un-packaged un-OOC hackish perl. Rich Farmbrough, 02:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

I'm not oriented to that object. One method might be to run it through the Phlotsenbaulmer transducer first, making the pointy anagrams seem less amalgamized. Of course, that assumes it's not overloaded! EEng (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Are you still creating those new albums categories by script? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No. I am working on the misnamed categories, which is very tricky, I have done about 40 or 50. Many follow the Geen Ween mould, or the band has the name of some other entity, therefore should probably get a (band) dab in the name. Mama Cass is at Cass Elliot which is not really WP:COMMON NAME, so the cat is probably better where it is. Analogous questions for obscure DJ XYZ vs Jo Doe, Jr. I suppose we just have to assume the article is named correctly. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Dorsami Naidu[edit]

The article Dorsami Naidu has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mhiji 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Femto Bot still creating categories with "specifically-marked"[edit]

Hi Rich, I'm not sure if you're aware, but Femto Bot (talk · contribs) continues to create Category:Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases from December 2010 and Category:Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases from January 2011 with the dash between "specifically" and "marked", despite the categories being renamed to omit the hyphen. Any chance you can get the bot stop creating the hyphened versions? They can't be populated anyhow. — ξ ^xplicit 07:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the category type was on a list, from which I happened to remove it a few days ago. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Località[edit]

That category I've proposed for deletion was, in practice, empty. The only 3 or 4 (random?) articles categozied over there, on it.wiki were categorized as frazioni. The term località (locality), as for my studies and experiences travelling in Italy, suddenly may refer (apart from a general term used for places, zones, fields) to some very little rural villages (frazioni) composed by few scattered farms and suddenly considered simply as a group of houses. Another thing: Sometimes it happens that some municipalities decide (per municipal statute) to refer to their frazioni as località or contrade (wards, divisions). Italian law regarding hamlets is not so strictly defined as (for example) the ones in Poland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, or in almost all the countries of the former Yugoslavia. So, for example, a category for localities on it.wiki does not exists and (if I've well understood) it has been decided to categorize all of them simply as frazioni, also to avoid a possible confusing over-categorization. The term frazione is also, in colloquial Italian language, the most popular and largely diffused word to refer to this kind of populated places. That category, i repeat, had only 3 or 4 articles reguarding frazioni categorized in that way on it.wp. So they were not properly under their correct category (i've controlled the correspondant Italian articles: categories and notes were clear about it) and that's the reason because the cat località of Italy remained empty. I can also suppose that it may be not so simple to make a defined (and national) categorization about this different subjects, but if possible it could be a good thing, IMHO. If you will decide to start this structuring, i could help: feel free to do it, of course :-) . By now I don't remember to have found articles about a proper località. I hope to have done a good explanation of that situation. Best of regards and good work. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the clear reply. There does seem to be a project for these small places , certainly they use the same infobox for both, but I'll take your word for the rest. I'm not about to start a frazioni e località project, it might interest User:Dr Blofeld though. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 17th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Frazioni are notable in my view and we should have an article on every one in Italy eventually but priority with Italy really is to expand the comune articles...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

Hello. You may be interested to note that User:Mhiji has taken an interest to nominating every category in Category:Empty categories for speedy deletion, regardless of whether the category was just created or not. He has nominated several categories you created, including Category:Compost Records albums. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I apologize for the extra work but I had removed some of the album artist and label categories, first because I had to fix some spellings or otherwise (Category:Candelight Records albums for example), doing it out of process because I thought it was a simple correction and didn't realize there was a process to follow. But then, I noticed many of the label categories were for labels that don't have articles, and I removed the categories (again out of process and I apologize) thinking that red-linked record labels weren't supposed to have categories since they don't have verified notability. I did just change an album you added into Category:Recall albums and changed it to Category:Recall Records albums, so that one's empty now. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem. I created most of these when I did a scan of categories that had something in them, but did not exist, and saw that many were album categories. I deleted the two bad cats. The remaining few I will investigate Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

Hi again. I moved the contents from Category:Def American albums, which you just created, because Category:Def American Recordings albums already exists. May I check others you've created in this manner and correct them if necessary? That means some may be emptied out of process but I won't remove album label categories from album articles just because the label itself doesn't have an article like I was doing. It will just be for corrections (misspellings, full/actual label name, other existing label category). You'll know which ones I've cleared once they start populating Category:Empty categories. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be delighted. It's not an out of process emptying if its a spelling mistake or misnomer. If you keep a note of the ones you empty I'll delete them. Also might be worth watchlisting them in case I re-create them. The other piece of maintenance is to update the infobox with the full label name. Nice to see Category:Candlelight Records albums with a few in it now. I'll do a bunch more album articles later. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot sticking in stuff on its own in Scientific opinion on climate change‎‎[edit]

In Scientific opinion on climate change‎‎SmackBot is reinstating a citation needed that an editor removed. I removed it and SmackBot again reinstated it. Dmcq (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops sorry I didn't go back far enough. Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. It is getting a worryingly smart and opinionated over scientific matters. Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

DMY Tag[edit]

What is the use dmy dates tag for? I've noticed your placement of this tag on several pages I watch. I don't know what it is, or what edits I could make to resolve an issue. All dates on the page are in date, month, year format to my knowledge. Thanks. --Powerten (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not an issue tag - hence it is invisible - it simply records usage. As time goes by dmy pages can pick up mdy dates and vice versa. If they are tagged it's easy to see when this happens. The same applies to "Use American English"and "Use British English". Rich Farmbrough, 19:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

QI20DE - QI20DX[edit]

None as of January 2011.

Or to make the structure into a list - which is better in some ways:

QI20 Mammals
- QI20D Ferret
  - QI20DA Inactivated viral vaccines
  - QI20DB Inactivated bacterial vaccines (including mycoplasma, toxoid and chlamydia)
  - QI20DC Inactivated bacterial vaccines and antisera
  - QI20DD Live viral vaccines
    - QI20DD01 Ferret distemper virus
  - QI20DE Live bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DF Live bacterial and viral vaccines
  - QI20DG Live and inactivated bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DH Live and inactivated viral vaccines
  - QI20DI Live viral and inactivated bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DJ Live and inactivated viral and bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DK Inactivated viral and live bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DL Inactivated viral and inactivated bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DM Antisera, immunoglobulin preparations, and antitoxins
  - QI20DN Live parasitic vaccines
  - QI20DO Inactivated parasitic vaccines
  - QI20DP Live fungal vaccines
  - QI20DQ Inactivated fungal vaccines
  - QI20DR In vivo diagnostic preparations
  - QI20DS Allergens
  - QI20DT Colostrum preparations and substitutes
  - QI20DU Other live vaccines
  - QI20DV Other inactivated vaccines
  - QI20DX Other immunologicals

Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

At first sight, I like the collapsed version best. The disadvantage with the list is that it isn't consistent with the other ATC and ATCvet pages. Right now, ATCvet code QI20 looks a bit psychedelic. I can almost see "None as of January 2011" written on a chalkboard.

And a ferret is a carnivoran, not a rodent. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew I'd regret saying rodent without checking... Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC).
20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Empty sections on ATCvet code QIxx[edit]

Hi! The sections you marked as empty in ATCvet code QI02‎ to ATCvet code QI20 (10 pages altogether) are meant to be empty. These sections of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System for veterinary medicinal products are (currently) empty, so there is nothing to add to our lists. Any problem if I revert you? And what can I do to prevent such edits in future? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What about adding "Currently empty" to each one of them? Better use italics too. This will help to distinguish between "empty on purpose" from "empty because it needs expansion". -- Magioladitis (talk)

Do you think it improves understandability (for humans, not bots) to have "Currently empty" or the like in each subsection instead of just the main sections? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting it on the main sections is probably best for humans. I'm not sure the value of listing codes for things that don't exist. It is also a shame that no-one cares if ferrets get mycoplasma, which is a nasty disease for such a sweet rodent. I have set that page to "None as of Janaury 2011." what do you think? It would also be possible to collapse empty sections thus:

QI20D Ferret[edit]

QI20AC - QI20DC[edit]

None as of January 2011.

QI20DD Live viral vaccines[edit]

QI20DD01 Ferret distemper virus

QI20DE - QI20DX[edit]

None as of January 2011.

Or to make the structure into a list - which is better in some ways:

QI20 Mammals
- QI20D Ferret
  - QI20DA Inactivated viral vaccines
  - QI20DB Inactivated bacterial vaccines (including mycoplasma, toxoid and chlamydia)
  - QI20DC Inactivated bacterial vaccines and antisera
  - QI20DD Live viral vaccines
    - QI20DD01 Ferret distemper virus
  - QI20DE Live bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DF Live bacterial and viral vaccines
  - QI20DG Live and inactivated bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DH Live and inactivated viral vaccines
  - QI20DI Live viral and inactivated bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DJ Live and inactivated viral and bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DK Inactivated viral and live bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DL Inactivated viral and inactivated bacterial vaccines
  - QI20DM Antisera, immunoglobulin preparations, and antitoxins
  - QI20DN Live parasitic vaccines
  - QI20DO Inactivated parasitic vaccines
  - QI20DP Live fungal vaccines
  - QI20DQ Inactivated fungal vaccines
  - QI20DR In vivo diagnostic preparations
  - QI20DS Allergens
  - QI20DT Colostrum preparations and substitutes
  - QI20DU Other live vaccines
  - QI20DV Other inactivated vaccines
  - QI20DX Other immunologicals

Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

At first sight, I like the collapsed version best. The disadvantage with the list is that it isn't consistent with the other ATC and ATCvet pages. Right now, ATCvet code QI20 looks a bit psychedelic. I can almost see "None as of January 2011" written on a chalkboard.

And a ferret is a carnivoran, not a rodent. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I knew I'd regret saying rodent without checking... Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC).
20:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

smackbot failing..[edit]

annomiebot is catching it. didnt even dateit in fact.(Lihaas (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)).

Thanks I knew, but i have now fixed it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot[edit]

Hi Rich. Femto Bot is recreating empty category pages: Category:Unreferenced BLPs from December 2006, Category:Unreviewed new articles created via the Article Wizard from December 2009, Category:Articles to be split from January 2009 - this is the second time, I deleted this already earlier today. SilkTork *^YES! 22:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, someone categorized something into them. Would be good to list an example in the summary field I suppose. Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 15th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot: blanking a page[edit]

Here SmackBot seems to have been doing much more than dating my {{source?}} addition. The page was fully blanked! L.tak (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

You might be interested in Template_talk:Lead_rewrite#Deleting_The_Categories_It_Is_Linking_To_Directly_And_Replacing_With_Category:Lead_section_needing_rewrite_Or_Something_Along_Those_Lines.3F.. Debresser (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that the dice has been thrown. Shouldn't Template:Context be renamed to Template:Lead missing context or something along those lines? And I don't understand Template:No definition, which should be merged with Template:Context, probably. What do you think? Debresser (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich? Debresser (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the rename makes sense, but I would expect people will still type "Context". Definition - is not exactly the same. "Foo is bar with a baz." is a definition, but there is no context. For example "Foo is a group with self-inversion." could be mathematical or sociological. The def lacking is scarcely used though. Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

I think we should wait a little till the fuzz calms down and then just remove those superfluous categories, rename this template, and merge No definition with Context. Although you are right about the difference, of course, but they are very close IMHO. I really think the rename makes sense, because when I see Context, I think it is an inline template. Until I read it, I didn't know it is a lead template. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, are you aware of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Inadequate_lead? Debresser (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This one is still waiting for your commentary. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

In addition, this editor seems pretty well-versed in Wikipedia rules. Although he has made some strange moves as well. In this context this edit is suspicious. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Last question answered in this edit. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Test templates[edit]

I request That The Test templates To not redict to the User Talk Messages. That is only because it says the "Old Grid can Be found here", so it will just lead to the same page, and if we remove the redirect, than the Wikipedians can see them easier.

OK I moved the historical documents to a sub page and linked to them. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 15th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

CfD[edit]

Since you commented on 'Modern American Weapons' at CfD, the proposal has been modified somewhat. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to take another look at the modified proposal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43[edit]

Template: Trial complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Tim1357 at 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 14:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Smackbot 2010-12-25[edit]

Seasons greetings. Smackbot wandered across my Watchlist:

Please try to keep the diff noise down[146][147][148]; this helps others editors to review faster
Converting to one underscore and one space[149], (?)
For [150] et al, Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects#Rule format states that "The first-letter case of the redirect is kept in the new template name"—according to this rule, the recapitalisations that have been performed in these edits are not from the upstream AWB, so are likely to be addition(s) added by the bot operator (yourself), in which case this would be a violation of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Rich Farmbrough. Please avoid adjusting the capitalisation, it causes unnecessary diff noise and does not have consensus.

Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010[edit]

Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting

News and notes: Director of Technical Operations hired; South Korean mayor sues; brief news

In the news: Designing Wikipedia and the origin of page histories; brief news

WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)

Features and admins: The best of the week

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Smackbot[edit]

The bot is a little too active at the moment, its often times given edit conflicts today. can we slow down its work?(Lihaas (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

I'll tweak. Rich Farmbrough, 22:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot removed an underline within math unexpectedly[edit]

Why on earthh did Smackbot remove an underline in sqrt(a_1) within math tags in the following edit [151], see the change for line 67. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Short answer, it's a bug. Long answer.. is too long. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

BAGBot: Your bot request SmackBot 37[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

I just noticed these and decided to take a look to learn the process since my own bot request is pending and I find myself somewhat shocked at the times. Does it normally take 2 and 3 months for a bot request to be approved? --Kumioko (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there are two new baggers, who have speed the whole thing up, trouble is a lot of momentum is lost. I find a problem code up a solution in relatively short order (minutes to days) and then submit a BRFA. By the time it's approved I have probably forgotten about most of it, sometimes someone else has fixed it, and my work is wasted... every-time there's ructions BAG says they will be more responsive. I have thought of joining BAG myself, but I don't want that responsibility - maybe I should bite the bullet - if the community would have me. Rich Farmbrough, 09:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Problem is that you still won't be able to approve your own bots. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 17:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

True but he could Deny, approve or review others which would free them up to do the same to his. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Why?[edit]

Today Smackbot said that it dated the {{originalresearch}} tag on Pahlavi Dynasty whereas multiple changes were made to the article. The biggest change was the change from {{Wikicommons}} to {{:Commons}}. The former created a little box that indicated that material relating to the article is available on WikiCommons. The latter dropped the entire contents of Commons in to the article. That edit was reverted by an unregistered editor and Smackbot came along later in the day and redid it. I found it because a DEFAULTSORT conflict was generated.

I am certain that this change was unintentional but why did Smackbot do it and how can you insure that it does not happen again? JimCubb (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it's related to removing "template:" from the template name internally, and ":" being a special character. I have escaped the : which should fix it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC).

smackbot missed something that anomiebot caught. [152](Lihaas (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)).

It misses loads, because I had to dump the old coding and re-write from scratch (if there's a build number beginning with "p" it's the perl version). But I didn't know it would miss that. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Level 2 and 3 headline format[edit]

Smackbot changes Level 2 and 3 Headline text from the right to the wrong format. Right is == Level 2 ==, wrong is ==Level 2== by default. To know what format is right you click on the "A" button in the icon row above the text window, this produces == Level 2 ==. Please fix this quickly, in long lists such as the linked Global spread of the printing press such sweeping changes can be annoying. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't do that anymore (for months), but it's not wrong. It's preferred by many people, and is used much more than the spaced version. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Empty categories[edit]

Category:Empty categories, which you created, has been nominated for 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. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Should the tags for nominating categories to be renamed be purple in stead of pink?[edit]

Feel free to participate in the discussion at Template talk:Cfd all#Should the tags for nominating categories to be renamed be purple in stead of pink?. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

Hi. Re my previous concern about Smackbot's over-promptness in adding datestamps and so on: this is beginning to really annoy me. Within seconds of an edit, it's in there modifying the article, so that my subsequent attempt to edit hits an edit conflict. Can you please add a substantial delay before Smackbot acts? I would recommend 60 minutes. I don't see what is lost by having it wait a bit. EEng (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It (the perl version) shouldn't edit before at least 15 minutes. I'll increase it to 25. AWB which is run intermittently, maybe a few times a day, has no concept of age. Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

Ok looks like this wasn't working. Will investigate. Rich Farmbrough, 20:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

I'm guessing you looked at [153]? EEng (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Rich Farmbrough, 20:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

are AWB "fixes" to articles necessary?[edit]

Why bother making edits such as this one in which there is nothing actually wrong with the article? As discussed at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects and elsewhere, the encyclopedia gains nothing and may well be worse off for making such changes, especially if nothing else in the article needed to be changed. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a redirect fix. Political divisions of the United States is not a good target to link "state" to, when US state is a available. On a separate note the page you refer to is horrendous shibboleth trotted out from time to time, in inappropriate contexts, and which builds arguments on performance based on a 2006 email list posting, then says performance is not an issue anyway (which in this context I agree with). Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

OK, but how is Wikipedia better off for the change, and why not use the correct link of U.S. state as a replacement, given that you're taking the time to make a change? The infobox uses the link Political divisions of the United States to make it as generic as possible, so that it is correct whether it's a state or any other variation of territory. Why change something that is barely technically broken to "fix" it to a link that's a redirect? Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Because there is a long term movement in WP towards US and away from U.S., it it my opinion that this article will be moved some time in the next few years, making the US title the better target. Possibly I could leave this until the 2010 Census figures come out and pick it up at the same time. Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 10 January 2011[edit]

News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news

In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project

WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways

Features and admins: Featured topic of the year

Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification[edit]

I have started a discussion about your category creations at WP:ANI#Automated creation of incorrect categories, with the suggestion of an edit restriction. Fram (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

<sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

Business transaction performance

Can you please explain your comment on citations? Are there four there insufficient? How many would be sufficient? thanks Charleyrich (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is User:Kuru who requested citations. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Helping Estonian Wikipedia[edit]

Thank you very much for agreeing to help.

So if it is possible, then add to the end of the page "<noinclude>[[Kategooria:Riigi andmete mallid|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>" to these templates and "<noinclude>[[Kategooria:Valitud sündmused mallid|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>" to these templates. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Font size and references[edit]

Hi. I replied at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)#Small_fonts. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Persondata[edit]

Duplicated entries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

TY. Rich Farmbrough, 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43[edit]

Template: Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Tim1357 at 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Tim1357 at 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing restriction[edit]

Aren't you, under your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, prohibited from making bot edits like [154],[155],[156],[157],[158],[159],[160] (all made within five minutes about a quarter ago)? Fram (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Continues, [161] and [162]. Fram (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your timestamp[edit]

Hello! Just a question: Is your personalized signature compatible with archiver bots (such as MiszaBot, ClueBot, etc)? Hey Mid (contribs) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Depends how smart they are I suppose. Certainly Sine-Bot hasn't jumped in. Rich Farmbrough, 15:33, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Is it worth taking the risk then? Though most threads have at least one or two "valid" timestamps, so it's not much of a problem. Hey Mid (contribs) 15:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

According to its user page, SineBot normally ignores editors with more than 800 edits on the assumption that they should know better. I doubt the archival bots recognize any date format for signatures other than the standard. Anomie ⚔ 17:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right – users who've been active here for a while don't have their unsigned posts automatically timestamped by SineBot. Hey Mid (contribs) 18:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:County routes in Erie County, New York (129–160)[edit]

Template:County routes in Erie County, New York (129–160) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Distinguish the

Template:Distinguish the has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#Template:Distinguish the|the entry on the Templates for discussion page]]. -DePiep (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of duplicate albums categories[edit]

I'm finding an awful lot of duplicate categories that you've recently created.

You created Category:Ice T albums; pre-existing Category:Ice-T albums
You created Category:2Pac albums; pre-existing Category:Tupac Shakur albums
You created Category:Warner Brothers albums; pre-existing Category:Warner Bros. Records albums

and so on. I realise you are probably doing this through some sort of mechanical process, but really I think we need to a be a bit more careful in avoiding duplicates. These duplicate categories are even being placed on articles where the pre-existing one already exists, as with Rhyme Pays, which had Category:Ice-T albums and Category:Ice T albums on it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I started out addressing specific labels, where the process works reasonably well. Clearly a more generic approach will require more generic safeguards. Rich Farmbrough, 15:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Portal/Images/Wikipedia essays[edit]

Template:Portal/Images/Wikipedia essays has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 21:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All-inclusive categories[edit]

Whatever happened with trying to get rid of all-inclusive categories? Debresser (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sabotaged by Fram who insists that they are "useful". Rich Farmbrough, 23:26, 17th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Where was the discussion? Debresser (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough, 01:50, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Please comment[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_17#Category:Wikipedia_introduction_cleanup. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_17#Template:No_definition. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And on Template_talk:R_from_other_template#Mistake. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor slip- big problems[edit]

Accidents happen. During your clean up of Kingston Mill, Stockport you changed the word Mill to ill in the Infobox template. This then orphaned the NFC image,. File:Kingston Mill, Stockport 0004.png‎ and the deletionistas at NFC tagged the image for destruction within 48 hours.See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content for the ongoing debate as to all the issues there that affect anyone that is documenting defunct companies. I have reverted the M and will follow the trail back to revert the tag. Thanks for your your other efforts though.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have wondered about the wisdom of deleting orphaned fair use images. Thanks for your note. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Recent edits[edit]

Please respond to Fram's recent post on your talk page about current Smackbot editing. Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cough cough. The {{citation needed}} redirect is at least on the AWB template list, but it still should not be done without a substantive other change. The infobox isn't even on the list. FFS, if you can't sort this out, sooner or later you're going to lose the right to make any AWB edits which aren't pre-approved specific simple tasks (like the unref removal above, Smackbot 43) - do you want that? Rd232 ^talk 17:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Officeholder is to subtle for the AWB template list I believe. Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Request[edit]

I made some moves and changes, as discussed in Template_talk:R_from_other_template#Mistake. There are 55 out of the more than 800 templates in Category:Redirects from warning templates that are protected. Could you edit them, please. This is an example of the most common edit I made. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Debresser (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

On addition I noticed Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace which has a empty cat notice, but as far as I understand, no template sorts therein, not even Template:R from other template which is mentioned specifically on the category page. So perhaps you could delete it? Debresser (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This could be seen as a clean-up category, I see no problem with it existing. Rich Farmbrough, 15:33, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

The reason it shouldn't exist is that it will never be populated. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion here. Just thought it would be fair to let you state your opposition there as well. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_18#Template:R_from_other_template. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Smackbot errors[edit]

this introduced a second references section, and still didn't fix the problem. This needs a references section, but despite the edit summary none was added. This produced a double references section header. This didn't solve the problem either. This adds the incorrect date parameters. As does this one. These are from checking the latest 25 edits only. Please stop. Fram (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not again... Hey Mid (contribs) 20:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, this again. Despite this listing of problems, Smackbot has made the exact same errors again, like here (unsubstituted date parameters) and here, where the same edit was done for the third time. The first two times were reversed by Debresser, Rich Farmbrough corrected his own third edit. But the ones from my previous post are not corrected, and as evidenced new problems are added to it. Fram (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

U-Vistract---a little help[edit]

re U-Vistract I am new to writing articles, and I would appreciate a little more guidance. You ask for more reference. I listed 23. You don't think that is enough? Are there specific parts that you feel are deficient? Thx Camdoc2001 (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Copied to appropriate place. Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Also:

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Template:Lfpfr[edit]

Please check the new id is worked. Carlos Henrique id isn't Carlos-Henrique. Matthew_hk t c 14:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, interesting, problem fixed, template improved, I think the page needs moving though? Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Edit notice at Colony High School (Alaska)[edit]

Rich, how would you feel about this combined notice:

Attention!

The community has placed this article on article probation as specified at here. Any addition of content that is not properly sourced, does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, or is defamatory will be promptly removed. In addition, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia should you persist in such actions.

Do not add the names of minors who are not independently' notable to this page.

--EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I don't have a fish in this race. But if I edited an article about a school, and the words "Sarah Palin" appeared in an edit notice, I would immediately assume that her child attended the school.

How about:

Attention!

The community has placed this article on article probation as specified at here. Any addition of content that is not properly sourced, does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, or is defamatory will be promptly removed. In addition, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia should you persist in such actions.

Do not add the names of minors who are not independently' notable to this page.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 16th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Did I edit both copies? Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: Trial complete.. *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Xeno at 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 21:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 22:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Respond eh? See voo play? :p[edit]

Hi Rich. You may want to comment at this discussion. Actually, it would be great if you could. :) œ ^™ 19:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Commented. Will attempt to revisit later. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

Infoboxes[edit]

Did you see my reply above? --Kudpung (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No , I hadn't noticed that the Oz box had gone because that whole section on the schools main page is a template of some kind and I don't know how it got there in the first place, so no changes show on my watchlist. My main problem is still how to automate the change over of the near 500 pages here. --Kudpung (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

You might want to pop back to this discussion as there's still some questions that users have about what you are doing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot[edit]

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

Edits by:

Mr.Z-man at 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Mr.Z-man at 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Mr.Z-man at 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Mr.Z-man at 04:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37[edit]

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

Edits by:

Mr.Z-man at 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Mr.Z-man at 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Mr.Z-man at 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Mr.Z-man at 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011[edit]

2010 in review: Review of the year

News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 09:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 13:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 09:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 09:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 09:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 10:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 09:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 10:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 10:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 09:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: {{BAG assistance needed}}. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Mr.Z-man at 04:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 10:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 10:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 11:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Stamford[edit]

Are you going to work on this? It's outside my range so I don't think I could help you any. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm still getting to grips with the template. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC).

Happy tenth![edit]

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Perseus, Son of Zeus has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

--Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th[edit]

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Hey Bzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Priority for 18 Jan[edit]

Clean the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 02:47, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Strange category name[edit]

What does Category:Albums category uses with invalid parameters actually mean? A category for those categories which use the template "albums", but with invalid parameters? Wouldn't "Category:Albums template used with invalid parameters" be a better name? Fram (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It means the category whose listing contains links to pages which use the "Albums category" template on the English Wikipedia but use it with invalid parameters. These are uses of the template, and hence "Albums category" uses - they have an invalid parameter. Maybe we could call it Category:"Albums category" uses with invalid parameters if we were really anal about the naming of relatively insignificant back end templates. The name you suggest is singular, but even "Category:Albums templates used with invalid parameters" would refer to a category of templates, not a category of pages (which happen to be almost certainly categories). Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Funnily enough this is explained clearly in the documentation for the template:

Uses of the template with invalid type are listed at Category:Albums category uses with invalid parameters under T.

Which raises the more interesting question, why you wanted to raise the matter when the answer is obvious?

Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Authentical plugin?[edit]

Yes, it is still there. I suggest we continue this on our talk pages(or you can add me in Runescape, as i also seen you on the rswiki) so do you know what to do to fix it?Joeytje50 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i am on the list, as the error for Joeytje50(not on list) is "Joeytje50 is not enabled to do this" while the error for Bot50(on list) gets the error "The password you provided is incorrect. (an authentication plugin rather than MediaWiki itself rejected the password)" And i asked Cook Me Plox, and i talked about it on the irc, and he doesn't know what the problem is.Joeytje50 (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. what to do with this? Needs some tech attention at Wikia I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 10:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Years pages[edit]

Greetings! Your name came up in a discussion at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Internal_References. The suggestion was that one of your minion bots might be helpful in cleaning up bannerspam on the years, decades, centuries pages. How would you feel about that?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Still at BRFA. Rich Farmbrough, 12:10, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1973)[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1973), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hang on}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. USchick (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1966)[edit]

A tag has been placed on The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1966), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. USchick (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated 100 or so articles in the Category:Queen's Awards for Enterprise for deletion as well. Fram (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course the prod reason is wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 22nd day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Denys Wortman[edit]

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Denys Wortman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. USchick (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous warning was an opportunity for you to fix the article, not an opportunity for you to delete the tag. USchick (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award[edit]

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheering at 2:14 in the morning! Rich Farmbrough, 02:15, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Denys Wortman[edit]

The article Denys Wortman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia:Notability (people)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. USchick (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

LGBT articles of Brazil[edit]

Hello! Brazilian people love U.S. citizens. Many flights from TX, CA, FL, NY, and GE to Brazil exists. You are very welcome. In FEBRUARY, in the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil will be aproved the *SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL* ([163]), and the pages LGBT rights in Brazil and Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil need of you. Because will generate a heavy traffic on these pages, and we need you to help in the English spelling of these pages, you understand me? Please help me. Hentzer (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

LGBT articles of Brazil[edit]

Thanks! You are a great person! Help me, and read interest facts of Brazilian LGBT. Hentzer (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Queen's Award[edit]

Please undelete The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Export & Technology (Combined) (1966). — Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) [via e-mail]

I am confused: why use e-mail like some newbie spammer for a matter which should be on a user talk page? Given the current AfD discussion and the fact that it was empty, I see absolutely no reason to re-instate it at this stage. You have my permission to re-create it when you actually have some content for it. But I suggest you reflect on whether it is a worthwhile exercise - I looked at The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (2005) and was very inclined to propose it for deletion as listcruft - 2 blue links out of 41 is not very promising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The business coverage in Wikipedia is very poor, with the exception of software and Internet companies. Even there, where a takeover has occurred I have seen pages being deleted and replaced with the words "In 2002 Mega Corp acquired Target Inc." in an acquisitors article. Also of course there is considerable variation in the names for business articles, since larger businesses are usually groups with subsidiaries, trading styles, brand names, divisions, and so forth. Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

You Blog[edit]

I noticed your blog page. Im not sure if I should/can add to it, so I'll ask here. Unless sidelined to other WP activities, I usually do Random Article editing;commas, spelling, recasting, replace redundancy, etc. Reading your blog I realized how buzy an editor like you must be with all your interests, etc. Is there some simple mindless task that I could perform to assist you? (Emphasis on the simple) 40 years ago, I worked in a building as a Night Superintendant. The house carpenter worked at night, on his own time, creating beautiful dressers, etc. on consignment. I was his unpaid assistant and learned invaluable, life-long lessons in the Art of Carpentry. Maybe the same can happen for me at WP. Buster Seven Talk 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rd232 ^talk 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

After you failed to respond at all to a recent notice of Smackbot issues, I've bumbled by to look at Smackbot's last 10 edits, and find 2 edits that are whitespace only [164] [165], 1 [166] which replaces a redirect not even on the AWB redirect list, without substantive other changes, and 1 [167] which isn't done carefully enough to notice a duplication of template redirects (both being replaced). After everything that's happened, this is just unacceptable. Rd232 ^talk 20:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your link 15 is manually corrected by me. I don't recall anything saying that I should remove duplicate templates, although I have a BRFA into do just that. Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

The white space edit are due to AnomieBot getting there first. The AnomieBOT task was created as a response to previous blocking. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

AWB Rule 1: Check every edit before you save it. AWB Rule 4: Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space.... I'm tired of your excuses and playing the victim; man up and take responsibility for your actions. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I do. There is, however, an old adage, "If it ain't broke don't fix it". While I think there are limitations to that particular saying, it is born our of experience. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

AWB Rule 1 doesn't really apply to bot accounts does it? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It applies to AWB use on any account. Per AWB Rule 2, separate accounts for AWB use are encouraged. Rd232 ^talk 23:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Also the edit to Fitness boot camp does create a substantive change.Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

which is? Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the last edits before the block, there is also the introduction of an empty references section to a template[168], the addition of a duplicate "name" parameter to the persondata (it now has an empty "NAME" and an incorrectly capitalized name in "name")[169], and the introduction of unsubstituted date parameters (despite the fact that this was raised on this talk page in the last few days)[170][171]. Thta's quite a high percentage and diversity of errors. Fram (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything else to say, Rich, either here or at the ANI thread (the block expires 8pm this evening, or you can comment here). Rd232 ^talk 13:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is in the nature of the references fixing that I follow up with a manual clean up. Nothing wrong with that. It is a process. Some of the suggestions made are plain wrong, some are valid, some are trivial. I find this scatter gun approach un-collegial. Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 23rd day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Here is some analysis of recent edits. Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 23rd day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

I've unblocked Smackbot. Watch those error rates. Rd232 ^talk 21:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

TY. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 24th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Strange templates[edit]

What are Template:WMCSBM2 and Template:WMCSBM3? Do you still require them? Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

They relate to "Wikipedia:List of empty monthly maintenance categories". 2 produces a list of categories which are sometimes crated in error. 3 is fro creating new categories. I'll put some documentation on them,. Rich Farmbrough, 16:24, 23rd day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1973)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1973) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Sorcerer's Apprentice[edit]

Thanks for the chance to learn. But I caution you that I may be less that adept at even the basic tool use, etc. (see above Disney cartoon). I'm pretty good at following examples so...if I can see how you do "whatever", it should work. As long as, early-on, we keep it simple. Buster Seven Talk 17:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Queens Award pages. Probably still need work...but did I get close? Also, please check out editor:Fram's question at the bottom of my talk. Im gonna go back to export and delete tech items....Buster Seven Talk 21:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna hold off for now. Seems like a game of table tennis is happening. Let me know the outcome. No prob, I Don't want to get sent to the Principals office. Buster Seven Talk 08:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

4,558,302 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 4,558,302. Since you had some involvement with the 4,558,302 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Fram (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese wooden donkey listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chinese wooden donkey. Since you had some involvement with the Chinese wooden donkey redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Fram (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Caterpillar Club[edit]

You are in Edit history as an editor on this article. It has been multiply tagged for improvement as an alternative to being recommended for deletion. This is a request for editorial intervention to improve this article. Please help if possible.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rfd speedy[edit]

Template:Rfd speedy 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) 04:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Category also[edit]

Template:Category also has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. WOSlinker (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Expand[edit]

I don't know what happened to them. I don't remember how I encountered the situation; all I know is that I decided to check to see whether there were any subpages remaining, so I undeleted it, checked for subpages, and re-deleted it. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41[edit]

Template: Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 10:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 10:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 15:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 10:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Better wikify code[edit]

I advice you to update to latest snapshot. Tagger excludes categories from word/character counting giving more accurate wikify tags.

Btw, I still don't understand why you replace upper case parameters from Persondata with lowercase messing the order. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dan Goodwin[edit]

You flagged Dan Goodwin's page as 'written like an advertisement'. In that there's substantial material on the page, could you be more specific as to what you believe is 'advertising'. Thank you. Echandada (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echandada (talk • contribs)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Adding more string templates[edit]

Hello, Wikid77 here. This is just a reminder that I am continuing to add more string templates, to make string processing 10x times faster by having an optimized template ready for each type of use. In particular, thank you for writing Template:Str_repc and the others, to extend Wikipedia's options for combining strings. Our big hindrance had been the expansion depth of {str_len} (nested 9-14 levels) and {str_find} (nested 18+ levels), so I have written shorter variations of them:

Template:Strlen_short - nested 3 deep, as a simple #switch to match short lengths.
Template:Strlen_quick - nested 5 deep, as faster in lengths 1-60 than the optimized {str_len} nested 9-14.
Template:Strfind_short - 5 deep, as 2-3x faster, plus longer 1-99 than {str_find} nested 18.

The "elephant in the room" of string usage seems to be {{Italic_title}}, used in 353,000 pages, so I am rewriting it to be 12x faster, with discussions on the talk-page. I firmly believe {Italic_title} has been using {padleft} over 65 million times (not a good use of resources!).
Meanwhile, I am concerned about talk of preventing the use of string functions in the future of Wikipedia, so making things 10x faster should improve the image of string-handling templates. However, there is good reason to avoid using string templates for static data, such as article titles, because the power of string handling is with checking variable data, not in italicizing titles which remain the same for years. Yet, I understand the need to auto-italicize genus/species but not phylum, class, order (etc.), so that is actually a good reason to have built-in string functions to find and insert strings based on infobox usage. Overall, this is a frustrating situation. -Wikid77 02:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 06:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

What editing restriction do you have?[edit]

He asked inquisitively. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 06:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

WikiED[edit]

I just plugged into WikiEd this morning as suggested. WOW. It's like graduating from a 3 wheeler to 2 wheeler (w/training wheels of course). Are you sure I won't fall and hurt myself? How is the Queens Awards project going. Any new assignments? Buster Seven Talk 15:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

SKye[edit]

Hi. Seems I got the category name wrong with Category:Populated places in Skye and Lochalsh. Can you quickly use AWB and rename all Category:Populated places in Skye?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can you delete Category:Populated places in Skye and Lochalsh? I am gradually trying to whittle down Category:Villages in Highland by districts that all.. The problem is that most of them are tiny hamlets so the populated places naming is better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sydney / Sidney[edit]

I have just composed and uploaded an article entitled 'Fr Charles Sydney Beauclerk SJ' but I have now realised that 'Sydney' should be spelled 'Sidney'. I don't know how to make a correction to an article heading. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Segalen4 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Just use the "move" tab. Charles Sidney Beauclerk is the correct article title, we avoid titles and post nominal letters in article names, partly because these can change over the course of a persons life. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Thank you, I'm very grateful. Segalen4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.39.71.30 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot "template:"[edit]

Has SmackBot began to insert the code "template:" now? Why? See diff. Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, no, not intentionally. In fact the more fully featured version removed such a redundancy. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Why don't you just toss all the code that is already AWB's code? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm not using AWB. Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

DEFAULTSORT[edit]

The addition of DEFAULTSORT in this edit appears to be strange place to put it. Keith D (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, known fixed bug. Rich Farmbrough, 00:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Maintenance categories[edit]

Hi, I saw you removed the {{uncategorized}} cleanup tag from Fishes of Invasive species in canada. A few months ago, Bearcat edited Category:Category needed to read "An article is not considered to be properly categorized if it does not have at least one permanent content category". I'm not sure whether there's consensus for this or not, but since no one's objected to the change, the proposed deletion categories might not be enough of a reason to remove {{uncategorized}}. Feezo (Talk) 02:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Template talk:Expand[edit]

Could you also restore the talk page archives? Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 --Tothwolf (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Infobox problems[edit]

For the usages of {{Infobox England and Wales civil parish}} you have made this change to Anlaby with Anlaby Common which has broken the categorisation. As per the documentation East Riding of Yorkshire and Isle of Wright use the country field with a "the" in front as opposed to the county field to get the category correct with "the" in it. If you are making this change then the template needs revising to generate the correct category. Keith D (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

The other East Riding parishes you have just replaced the country with England without populating the county field. May be it is best to drop the category from the template and add it directly to all of the articles that use the template. In the case of Moreton cum Alcumlow I think that Cheshire East should be in the district field and Cheshire in the county field. Keith D (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably should be "on" for the Isle of Wright. Another county, though not mentioned in the documentation, is the West Midlands which uses "the" in front of it. Keith D (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

That was quick. Thanks for sorting it out. Keith D (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

Orphan tags belong below an AfD tag, not above. This edits changed the position of the tag from the correct position to the incorrect one, and made no other significant changes. This edit only replaced a redirect to a template with the actual template name, and thus made no significant change. It seems as if your most often used build (p604) is running without problems (from a sample check at least), while other builds (i.c. a595) are a lot more prone to errors. Fram (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know. Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

(AWB bug raised I think) Rich Farmbrough, 10:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Roshven[edit]

If you have concerns over this page please start a discussion on the talk page. :)

Colinmotox11 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletemenow[edit]

Do you really want this duplicate of Antjuan Tobias deleted? Is this some sort of test? Thanks, Borkificator (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You passed.. :) No it is sometimes necessary to test on a page in mainspace for one reason or another. I use deletemenow so that people don't worry about whether to delete it or not. It rarely exists for more then a a minute, and I usually delete it myself before anyone notices it. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Bot policy violation[edit]

Your current "correct caps in header" edits seem to be a violation of the bot policy, "Bot processes may not fix spelling or grammar mistakes or apply templates such as ^{[weasel words]} in an unattended fashion". While some of the edits also make more substantial changes, many of them are only cosmetic, and some have errors, like duplicating the "name" parameter in the persondata here (and is there any reason to intrioduce lowercase when the other ones are uppercase?). You even introduce the birthdate twice (in different formats and case) in one edit[172]. Fram (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The duplicate parameters work fine, so are not a real issue, however I have resolved that problem. The program runs against a list of list of 844 specific headers, and is an approved bot task. Rich Farmbrough, 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Even now the most common is External Links it seems. Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Could you give a link to the exact approved bot task? Looking through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot didn't return any obvious matches to this task, only Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXIX was somewhat similar but not applicable here (only valid for pages in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Air Force Historical Research Agency). And even assuming that having the same parameter with two different values doesn't cause problems for whatever tools use these parameters, it is still an error to introduce them. The change of capitalisation will not cause problems as such, but having bots that make our articles internally less consistent is not really the purpose of this... Fram (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Modifying dates?[edit]

[173], [174]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm... I just realised is the same article. Was it problem to the script or manual? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Known (fixed) problem. Rich Farmbrough, 09:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

I am getting confused. Do you use perl for the bot and AWB for non-automated edits from this account? AWB shouldn't be changing the case like in here (line 89). Sorry for the repeated messages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, that is just a stupid preservation of case caused as a reaction to the ridiculous AN/I threads. Nobody ever asked for preservation of case across template replacement, that I am aware of - it lead to the absurd "iMDB" usage, however that extent of paranoia would have seemed justified at the time, since accounts were being blocked for changing the case of a single letter, or less. Rich Farmbrough, 11:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

I tend to agree. After that we adjusted further and if the word is in capitals the casing could change. So, this mean we are past this casing fight? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer sentence case, as we use for header, article names, page names and... well sentences, but I have never, despite what has been said, made indiscriminate changes to template casing. The actual preferred usage seems to be lower case for inline cite templates, sentence case for practically everything else, although clearly typing lowercase is less effort. Eubilides felt strongly otherwise, a year or so back. A lot of people, reasonably just don't want to see diff noise. If a name is being changed, a case change is not diff noise. So short answer is yes I beleive we are over the non-battle that some people were desperate to make into a battle. Rich Farmbrough, 11:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Freezing point (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Freezing point (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Freezing point (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Quest for Truth (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Anthony Hall (Buckinghamshire) has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Peacekeeper 1234 15:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Some errors[edit]

Not for the first time, Smackbot removes text from hidden comments, making them much less useful: [175]. Other edits also have problems, like the incorrect name in the persondata here. The order of fields in Persondata is also non-standard[176]. And the aproval for this task has also not been provided yet, giving the impression that this is an unapproved, bot policy violating task. Fram (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40[edit]

Template: Trial complete.. *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by EdoDodo at 11:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 00:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Bug in Smackbot?[edit]

Smackbot used a bizarre edit summary "Adding references section" when it repaired the refs and added an uncategrized template. However, the page was in around 12 categories, and Smackbot did not add a == References == section. diff Could it have anything to do with the pending changes protection? Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There was already a references section. The bot knows a number of other things to try though (and as you can see I was "helping" it a little with the capitalisation of "recently") which is why it says "and/or general fixes" . With this particular run I tend to examine the leftovers manually, in this case someone else fixed the problem - which was someone closing refs with the same tag as they opened them. As to pending changes, I don't think it is a problem, although I had expected it to be. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

As requested, please provide a link to the bot task approval for these changes[edit]

As requested, please provide a link to the bot task approval for these changes. Fram (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011[edit]

News and notes: Anniversary celebrations; Foundation reports; local language problems; brief news

In the news: Anniversary coverage continues; Thai government translates Wikipedia; brief news

Sister projects: Upcoming steward elections, and a retrospective on stewards' work in 2010

WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket

Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons

Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case

Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Spaces in section headers[edit]

Spaces in section headers should not be changed en masse. They may be made consistent within an article, but they should not be changed from the version with spaces to the one without (or vice versa). You did this here, here and here. The same happened here, where you also add the Persondata parameters out of order. And you still haven't provided teh requested evidence of bot approval for this task, which otherwise is a violation of bot policy. Fram (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User answered by email. Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Since you have not provided any evidence of your claim that this bot task is approved (not here and not by mail, which is not the best way to address such things anyway), despite four requests by me to do so, I have blocked the bot. Please don't restart the "Correct cap in header and/or general fixes." or anything similar before you have shown some evidence that this has approval. I have no objection to you unblocking the bot solely to continue with the "build p605" edits, which hve approval and don't seem to be problematic (or at least have a much lower error rate, and a much higher benefit rate). Fram (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The number of requests is irrelevant, I am not here to run around after your little tantrums,much as you would like it. Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough: you may bot unblock your own bot, so I have reblocked accordingly. Please sort this issue out in civil discussion. To request review of the block you may post at WP:AN but you may not unblock it yourself, as that is tantamount to self-unblocking. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

what part of I have no objection to you unblocking the bot solely to continue with the "build p605" edits,' didn't you read? Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

You didn't say that would continue solely with those edits, so the situation was not resolved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

OK I'm sure we'll satisfy the milk monitor with some documentation sooner or later. Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Well the task has been running since some time in 2006, but I haven't found the authorisation yet (this was back when things were a lot more informal) I have searched through the archives I can find. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Guys this is silly to block a good bot for removing useless spacers in the headers. I know that the argument about spaces or no spaces is an old and subjective argument but I personally agree with this edit when its done with other things. I don't think we should be removing them as a sole edit but if we are there doing other things like adding persondata then we should get rid of them (a nd change image to File while where there). These spaces are a waste of space and harddrive space even being there. They are ugly when viewing the article in edit mode and make it more difficult to view the article when you have spaces around everything. If yuo don't like the bot or don't want it to edit and want to create your then just say so but to continue to block this bot for these silly stupid reasons is just wrong. --Kumioko (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I would say 5 years unopposed for a task (except for one guy who thinks "mixed martial arts" is a proper noun) pretty much counts as consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

The block was for a variety of reasons, not just for "removing useless spacers in the headers". It was for running an unapproved task (until evidence of the contrary has been provided), with edits that violate bot policy (WP:BOTPOL#Spell-checking), contained errors (using the same parameter in Persondata twice with a different value) and inconsistencies (again in persondata, moving parameters out of order for no reason, and changing the capitalisation of one of the parameters while leaving the others with another capitalisation), and finally also removed spaces from headers even when all the headers in the article were in the same style, which is the kind of edit no bot or AWB user (or basically any user, even manually) is supposed to make per WP:MOS. Bots shouldn't be used to implement some personal layout preference to a large number of articles, when such preference is not supported by a clear policy or guideline, and has no benefits whatsoever. Fram (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, your AWB edits need more careful consideration as well, two errore and two dubious edits in four edits is a bit high... There is no reason, when a parameter is used twice to remove the one parameter that is in the right place, and to keep the one that is placed out of order[177]. You did the same here, but have at the same time made the capitalization of the parameters inconsistent. On to the actual errors: here you removed the actual full date of birth from the Persondata, and kept the one that only had the year (and was positioned incorrectly of course, and which has now been capitalized differently as well), and here you removed the correctly placed and capitalized one, and not only kept the one out of order, but changed the parameter name to something non-existent. Four AWB edits, none of them an improvement to the Persondata, two of them actually making things worse, none of them reverted or corrected. Fram (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you are wrong as usual. Rich Farmbrough, 09:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

Care to explain how? Did you not remove the full birthdate from Graham Watt, and did you not include an incorrectly named parameter in Kutraleeswaran? Or are you just making things up, like when you stated after the reblock by MSGJ "what part of I have no objection to you unblocking the bot solely to continue with the "build p605" edits,' didn't you read?", even though SmackBot did not restrict itself to build p605 edits but mostly restarted the task that got it blocked in the first place? If you want to be trusted and to convince me (or probably most other people) that I am wrong, you'll have to provide more than just an empty denial. Fram (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In Barry Trail a duplicate field is removed. Improvement.

In Alessandro Riguccini a duplicate field is removed. Improvement.

Rich Farmbrough, 10:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

So because two things which I didn't complain about are improvements, pointing out the other things that happened in the same edits and which made it worse or were actual errors are "wrong"? Very Orwellian, but not actually helpful or correct of course. Fram (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And while your current AWB edits don't have the errors of the first four anymore, they still decapitalize the parameters they fill in for no good reason (note that the standard, as described at the template and Wikipedia:Persondata, are capitalized parameter names). Fram (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Standard parameter names are lower case. This template was imported form the German Wikipedia without due care and attention. The docmentation has not kept up. Rich Farmbrough, 10:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

Sorry but I have to agree with Fram in some parts. I see two problems in introducing lowercase parameters in Persondata:

people not using the latest AWB's snapshot will get confused introducing errors because of this inconsistency.
the vast majority prefers uppercase parameters for this one. Rjw's bot and AWB use uppercase characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right that earlier AWB's had problems, but that is now resolved - the UPPERCASE parameters are an anomoly. And it is only because of AWB (which effectively RJW's bot is too) that there are so many persondata set up. Rich Farmbrough, 10:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

I would actually make it a GF to change these to lowercase. Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

I find it completely unnecessary to force the code change for that. All capitals are easier to find and make clear that this template is an exceptional on-visible template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that, for the purpose of the person data template, using uppercase for the template parameters would be better. --Kumioko (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So, Rich, can you please try to gain some consensus for what you are doing? Maybe you think you are making easier for people to read but I and many other think you don't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure we can do something. Rich Farmbrough, 13:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Similarly, I believe that there is no consensus for the moment to replace "references" with "reflist" (like here). Fram (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have to show consensus for every edit I make. Rich Farmbrough, 14:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

AWB rules? "# Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate WikiProject before proceeding." Considering that there recently have been ANI discussions and Village pump discussions over these changes (not by you, but the same replacement), they clearly are controversial. In general, yes, evety AWB edit should be an edit for which a consensus exists, tacit our outspoken. This change (and the persondata one, and the spaces in section headers one) have no such consensus and are otherwise inconsequential (things don't work better after these changes), so why not just skip them? Fram (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why you are still changing the capitalization of Persondata from upper- to lowercase? Even ignoring the cases where you add new persondata in lowercase, there are still ones like [178], [179] and [180] where the rest of the edit is improving the article, but for some reason the capitalization is changed as well. Fram (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This has to stop unless consensus is reached. I 'll start a discussion in Persondata. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Persondata#Uppercase_parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Xrefx[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Year header[edit]

Template:Year header 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) 09:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Capitalising templates[edit]

I am missing something here. For a long time now you have been making, and are still making, mass automated edits capitalising templates. I thought this was just a matter of personal preference, making no operation difference to Wikipedia at all. But if this was the case then you wouldn't be wasting all these computer resources on such an unpleasant exercise, since it would look like you just wanted to show content editors who don't share your personal preference that you can use an automated tool to bulldoze and control them. So, please would you let me know what this is really about. Then I can see the light and start happily capitalizing templates too. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I take it you are referring to the article Swarm behaviour? In which case it "is about" readability and consistency. {{Externalimage}} is an un-spaced template name, and barely readable, whereas its target is {{External media}}, the space making it more readable. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Snoqualmie, Washington[edit]

Someone has messed with the Snoqualmie, Washington Page - the "Location" has trash in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.218.242 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nemesis (novel) (disambiguation)[edit]

The article Nemesis (novel) (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No incoming links, incorrect title syntax, near-impossible search term

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JaGa^talk 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 01:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

pop culture section in Guadalajara[edit]

I see youve eliminated about all of the pop culture section in the article. I tried eliminating it entirely (its nothing but trivia) but it got put back. Lets hope your edits stick. Ill do what I can.Thelmadatter (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Check your AWB edits before saving[edit]

Using AWB, on the Skatemill article, you changed the “Unreferenced-Stub” tag to a “Refimprove” tag here. Trouble is that this article is unreferenced, so the tag should not have been altered; and also your tagging was a duplicate tag as this article had been previously tagged for Refimprove since November 2010. I undid your edit here with the edit summery “please check your AWB edits before saving”. Inexplicably, again using AWB, you removed the Unreferenced tag and restored the duplicate Refimprove tag here. When using AWB it is important that you carefully check your edits before saving, and even more so when another editor has taken his time to correct your previous editing error. Dolovis (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right I missed dupe tag. There is a reference, albeit a dead link, and to the image rather than the text. Notice that the refimprove was added the day after the ref, and is the correct tag for the article. There should be no articles with both refimprove and unrefernced tags(unless they are "unreferenced section").

SmackBot[edit]

In this edit, why did the bot date a template that does not support a date parameter? Also, is it really supposed to be changing {{italictitle}} into {{Italic title}}? Ucucha 14:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It does support a date, and yes {{Italic title}} is the actual template name. Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

Your edit[edit]

Hey! Just wanted you to know that your edit to 2009 Esiliiga made a mess in the standings table. Pelmeen10 14:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I found the error inthe regular expression, but he ultimate cause is still a mystery. Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

2010 Bulgarian film[edit]

In Blofeld's absence, may I suggest this film for a start? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks used. Rich Farmbrough, 07:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

Very annoyed that you killed all my changes to the Sapient Corporation page from Feb 16, and reverted to information that is outdated and inaccurate.

Can you revert to how the page looked, end of evening Feb 16th, then tell me specifically what you want fixed?

Editing our profile is SO not user friendly. Requires coding skills to make changes then random editor decides to make copy changes even though his information on the company is not accurate or up-to-date.

User talk:Dlabar

this edit was not by SmackBot. And it's not your company profile, its an article about it. Suggest you discuss with the editors involved. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

CloudSafe[edit]

Hello, CloudSafe was tagged by you because of WP:N, could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#CloudSafe and remove the tag? Best, Roberto valerio (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Check the history, someone else added the tags, and it looks like the DRV isn't complete yet? Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

Eugene Masonic Cemetery article[edit]

Thanks for requesting a citation. I don't have a hard copy of the necessary book at hand right now but am taking steps to provide the information required. Thanks also for adding a couple of links to other articles, if indeed you were the person who did that.

CRBW (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I was probably neither of the above people. User:LordVetinari is the one to thank. Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

blixt[edit]

I think you missed the olafdfull among all the project boxes: [181]. Cheers. ^walk victor falk^talk 06:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I expect you are right, but I haven't edited the talk page for that article. Rich Farmbrough, 07:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

Ed Whitson. The use of the word "likely" in my opinion makes the "By whom?" unnecessary. Read an old article about Whitson, and I think you will see that this is a reasonable statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.20.47 (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot merely dated the tag. However glancing at the article I would suggest that there is no need for a forward looking statement in the lead and "is best remembered for" woudl be better, backed up with more detail and cites in the body. Rich Farmbrough, 22:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Question regarding SmackBot: When template dating[edit]

Howdy. With this edit, why was the template dated February 2011 instead of May 2009?--Rockfang (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Good luck[edit]

I just wanted to tell you good luck on editing. Although I admit you have done some edits that were unneeded I also don't think its worth all the attention that you have been getting from Fram and some of the other editors. Its clear to me at this point that some of them won't stop until you are either banned or you give up in frustration. There is an old mantra that says "If you don't do nothing, you can't get blamed for nothing but if you do a lot there is a lot you can get blamed for." Wikipedia doesn't like editors like you and me that do a lot of edits. They like editors that do 1 or 2 edits and don't disturb anything. Anyway that's just my opinion of late but I wanted to wish you good luck anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd mostly second the above. However with that said I think it is clear you do need to discuss the "type" change in a wider forum. I think in certain cases it could be a good idea; but, to take an example, on the Wikify tag it is effectively useless to the WikiProject's needs. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It does depend on the project. There are a whole bunch of subject specific templates on the one hand ({{Chemical importance}} for example), and requests for breakdown by type/subject/project on the other. This simply gives the ability to create "by topic" sub cats, it does not require anyone to do it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

Many thanks Kumioko. Rich Farmbrough, 17:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Related template[edit]

Template:Related 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. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of adverts in racquet articles[edit]

Hi Rich. User:Gbatterh (Special:Contributions/Gbatterh) continues to add and reinsert a commercial website for racquets in the Squash (sport) article and others. For example,

Squash Racquets

Can you help? It's on the verge of 3RR. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace.
Message added 11:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination for deletion of Template:All interwikis same name[edit]

Template:All interwikis same name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace.
Message added 17:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Use of Huggle[edit]

Hi Rich,

I'm quite new to using Huggle (and actually new to WP:RCP too). I notice that for some IP vandalism you leave a message on the talk page, while for others you don't - you just revert. Please could you tell me how to decide which to leave a user message for? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Re CT[edit]

There are strong incentives for people to make it worse, but bit by bit we'll get it there... The mere existence of the article strikes me as a problem, a kind of Okrentian response to that other kind of terrorism with which we are most definitely not at war. On the other hand, there's one line in there which probably ought to be removed for lack of notability, but really should be removed because it illustrates just how deep one has to dig for examples of the article's supposed subject: It cites a bomb plot or somesuch by a fifteen (sic.) member militia. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB requests[edit]

Hi Rich. I have some things needing doing. First is List of regencies and cities in Indonesia, The first two provinces are done but can you use AWB to add Category:Regency capitals of Indonesia to all of the articles in the capital columns which are the seats of the regencies. The other thing needing doing is to go through Category:Populated places in Caithness, Category:Populated places in Nairn and Category:Populated places in Lochaber and change the map from Scotland to the relative district like this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Done

Regencies

Fef is not what you expect.
Bula redirects to the Phillipines
Ilaga is a Christian Militia
The kepi is a cap with a flat circular top
Parigi is a village and a mandal in Anantapur district in the state of Andhra Pradesh in India
Seba is a drum and bass producer
Soe is a village in Orava Parish, Põlva County in southeastern Estonia.
Waris is a drama created by PTV,
tigi is apparently Toni & Guy

These pages are disambiguation pages:

Rich Farmbrough, 02:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

These places have no infobox:

in Caithness

Berriedale, Highland
Scrabster
Reaster
Haster
Ham, Caithness
Burnside, Highland
Achreamie

in Lochaber

Glenborrodale
Tarbet, Lochaber
Grigadale
Glenachulish
Blarmacfoldach
Achriabhach
Achnaha
Tomdoun
Strontian
Glenuig

in Nairn;

Geddes, Highland

Rich Farmbrough, 11:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Typos[edit]

Heh, yeah, sorry.... I did kinda try to explain it to him at first. I'll try to get him to understand that (for me) typing his name is like playing finger twister. :P Ion Zone (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 24 January 2011[edit]

News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news

In the news: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited; Wikipedia still failing to fail; brief news

WikiXDC: Wikipedians celebrate anniversary with US National Archives in Washington, D.C.

WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more

Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011[edit]

News and notes: Executive Director travels; DMCA takedowns; fellowship clarifications; brief news

In the news: Facebook hack; gender gap; What is the Wikipedia "community"?; brief news

The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books

WikiProject report: WikiWarriors

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Tim1357 at 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 06:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 06:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:London Gazette Index[edit]

That looks like it was a lot of hard work. Very Useful. Well Done. --DavidCane (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree but I wouldn't be surprised if one of Rich's fans doesn't come back and say he's link farming or that its unencycloipedic. --Kumioko (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks David. Chuckle @ Kumioko.. I still have to chase the London Gazette for certain missing issues. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Problem in Dowdy–Ficklen Stadium article[edit]

Hi Rich. Could you have a look at this? I added some links to the Dowdy–Ficklen Stadium article which I thought were appropriate to the article and this other editor (User:PGPirate), without discussion, keeps taking them out calling them either firstly "linkspam" or secondly "vandalism" -- neither of which I've ever engaged in in my six years editing Wikipedia. Cf. this attempt to discuss it also. --- Wikiklrsc (talk)

Thanks, Rich, very much for adding some civility to this matter. In no way had I or will I ever add "linkspam" or "vandalism" to any article. I had been researching another topic, on the manufacture process of the new scoreboard for this stadium, and in doing so, found some relevant links about the actual stadium. There seems to have been some confusion about the ranking of this new scoreboard, etc. So the information I found on another related topic whilst researching, I thought relevant to this article on the stadium. A comment made by User:PGPirate quoting "So stop putting your spam on the article" just isn't either the true case or useful or even civil. Thanks for your kindest help and attention. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

Why is my article being deleted? I was hoping for more contributors to flesh it out which is why I made it so sparse. SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Star Wars: The Clone Wars (season 2 finale)[edit]

Hello, I was looking over the Star Wars Pages and noticed someone put a Speedy Deletion Tag on Star Wars: The Clone Wars (season 2 finale). could you look over this.174.29.90.139 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy was already declined. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

Persondata shouldn't follow defaultsort blindly[edit]

It looks as if AWb (or your version of it) is following the defaultsort to fill in the persondata, even when the defaultsort is completely different from the article title (because of a move, an error, or whatever reason). I would think that the article title should get preference over the defaultsort, or else that you should skip page with such discrepancies. E.g. [182] and [183]. Fram (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. AWB is not as smart as it should be, in particular cases I override it, - Roman numerals get reinstated for example - and there are other cases where it should use slightly different rules for persondata than for DEFAULTSORT, which I can't recall at the moment, but meant to log a bug over. On the other hand if the DEFAULTSORT is set by human editors, why should a script presume it is wrong? Maybe this is a discussion you could have at the AWB pages, you can quote me there. On the third hand, since no actual use for {{Persondata}} has been defined, any discussion about it is a little moot. Rich Farmbrough, 10:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, now at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Persondata shouldn't follow defaultsort blindly. Fram (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, adding or deleting templates isn't minor according to WP:MINOR. I suppose this applies even to templates with no actual use... -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London[edit]

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 09:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011[edit]

News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief

In the news: Wikipedia controversies about Mormon topics examined; brief news

Gender gap: Widespread discussions about the low participation of women in Wikipedia

WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40[edit]

Template: Approved.. *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC).
Gigs at 02:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Gigs at 13:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough at 13:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
EdoDodo at 11:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC).
Jarry1250 at 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Tim1357 at 02:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
Tim1357 at 02:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Tim1357 at 02:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 13:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Tim1357 at 02:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Tim1357 at 02:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot task 40[edit]

Nice task, some minor problems. In some instances, the sort added to a category (mainly location-based ones) is not the best one: while e.g. here this is solved perfectly, in cases like this, this, this or this the sort added to one of the categories is not the correct one, since it is redundant to the cat (England vs. English, Dominican, ...). Finally, a capitalization error here (new instead of New). Fram (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I contemplated making it a little smarter by pulling semi-specific matches like "England" but figured that this was going too far. However the "Southeast Asian Games" example is probably worth replicating. Rich Farmbrough, 08:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. I note that you are working on or have corrected some other problems as well (year in science articles), so I'll let you get on with this without further interruptions. Fram (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope Abbey article[edit]

I see that you left several warnings on the revised Hope Abbey article. These are obviously boiler plate, but I found them patronizingly insulting, which appears to be contrary to the established Wikipedia policy of treating newbies with restraint. Let me ask, as gently as I can, what cleanup you had in mind. The edits I've made were precisely to clean up an inferior previous article. Though I confess to being new to the Wikipedia community, I've had many years of experience writing and editing, yet I don't have a clue what you want to see cleaned up, and you have left no hints.

CRBW 17:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot - New Citations for Peter Allen Golden entry[edit]

Hi.

I'm new to Wikipedia. Please forgive me if I'm making some newbie mistakes. I saw that you felt the Peter Allen Golden entry needed more reliable third party sources and fewer primary sources. I have now added a dozen reliable third party sources, including The Worrall Community Newspapers, The Times Union (Albany), The Associated Press (in The New York Times), Independent Media Review Analysis, Israel Behind The News, The Daily News (New York), The Record (Troy), Publishers Weekly, Commentary (magazine), The Jerusalem Report and the New York State Bar Association. Please let me know if this satisfies you. And again, I'm new to Wikipedia so forgive me if I haven't followed the proper protocol. Any other advice you can give would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanCrary (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

"{{Source need translation" ... is getting changed to "{{Verify source..."[edit]

SmackBot is changing {{"Source need translation ..." is getting changed to {{"Verify source ...". I don't think this is a good idea. The fact that a translation is needed to make a source work for an article is a very different message than a mere "we need a better source here" -- or at least, that's my take on it.

Here is the example I saw where SmackBot did this: [184]

Has some discussion occurred somewhere to get rid of the {{"Source need translation..." template? As far as I know, it was still listed in the Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup last week. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It was redirected to {{Verify source}} on 20 December by User:Bsherr. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the response. I don't get how we are to make an inline tag requesting a translation of a source so that it is verifiable by readers of English... Hmmm. N2e (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do slightly favour not doing that. It is a little too far in my opinion, "page needed" "year needed" etc are about as far as I would go on an article page. There is, or was, a WikiProject dedicate to translation, which would seem a good place to ask, better in fact as you need to address translators rather than readers with such a request. Rich Farmbrough, 04:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Smackbot edit: Saudi Arabia[edit]

Hi, There's been a citation needed tag put into this article today by Smackbot. There is a citation, but it's at the end of the para because the citation covers other issues in the para. I reverted and gave an edit summary, but Smackbot reverted again. I've left it now - but could you take a look please. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Clearwater River (British Columbia)[edit]

As a newbie, I don't understand the AWB reference you added to this article today about additional citations needed. There were no references in the original article and I have added two, one of them being a book I wrote on the area. These are the two authorities on the river, I don't know what other references you are looking for. Roland Neave (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

You might consider....[edit]

... getting a bot flag. This can get annoying :P --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 05:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:Femto Bot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 06:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Working backwards I guess you are talking about the recent changes pages, so I need to check that I set the bot attribute. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Done Rich Farmbrough, 03:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Template:ISO 639 name[edit]

Lots of transclusions of Template:ISO 639 name zh-Hani, but yet no template? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I created it, I hope that someone will decide exactly what zh-Hani stands for, as it can be a specialist area. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Persondata again[edit]

Parameter out of place and duplicated. [185]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011[edit]

News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news

In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news

Accreditation: Gaining accreditation as Wikimedia photographers at sports events

WikiProject report: Articles for Creation

Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought

Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

HELP!![edit]

Can you please help me out with this article-Ooty? I was editing the infobox when suddenly the whole article went out of shape. It's LIVE now! Please help--Suraj T 07:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Surajt88's talk page.
Message added --Suraj T 07:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm sorry, but arent citations allowed in this infobox?--Suraj T 07:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to see someone was able to take a successful crack at it. I was sitting there stumped for awhile, and my attempts to fix it all failed pretty badly.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture upload troubles[edit]

Hi there. Do you have time to please assist me here? I've uploaded a CD cover from Earl Klugh's album Life Stories - unfortunately Wikipedia's server did not indicate during the upload that a file with the same name exists. The box with "Ignore any warnings" was not activated in the upload formular. As a result of the upload, the original picture used in this article is now overwritten with the file which I uploaded. I've reverted my edits on the file, yet the new file still remains. Could you please assist and delete / or rename the file which I've uploaded and undelete the original file? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Done Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks very much. Is there any way to check before uploading a picture file if a picture with the same name already exists? Amsaim (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just type "File:xxxx.jpg " in the search box. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Ok, thanks for the info. Amsaim (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Allegedly unreferenced pages[edit]

Thank you for this, but when you update an "unref" tag to "refimprove", you should probably be changing the date, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter I gave some consideration to, however it is certainly true that an unreferenced article needs its references improving, therefore the earlier date is also valid, moreover it is the rule AWB uses, so I decided to go with it. If you think it's an important distinction, it might be worth bringing up at the AWB talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Editing restriction violations[edit]

I haven't checked your edits for a few weeks now, but it is obvious that you are again violating your editing restrictions, making many AWB edits which have no effect on the page (yes, they remove a category you first created to be able to do the edits, but that's rather circular reasoning). The templates you changed, and the parameters you replaced, wored just as good before the replacement as afterwards, e.g. [186][187][188][189][190][191][192] ... Some others even hadn't the excuse of the self-created category.[193]. Here you add an incorrectly dated, and not needed, wikify tag. I note that you were also still changing the capitalisation of some of the Persondata parameters, despite clear opposition [194][195]. This one is a truly incorrect example of that. And here you change the capitalisation of all of them, which makes them consistent, but changes the general appearance to your preferred minority one. Still removing spaces from headers as well[196]

Basically, these are all things that have been discussed with you before, and for which you have an editing restrictions and subsequent blocks. Is there any reason you are still doing them despite all this? Fram (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

They don't work as well. The category is not simply removed a typological category is added. The wikify template on Eric Baus is slightly odd - certainly the date has a known cause which I have rectified - perhaps the bare URLS are a contributing factor to AWB's tagging algorithm, or maybe simply the link density is unreasonably low. Of course it is nice to see you welcoming consistent template parameters. As for your last example, I really can't answer as to why every character changes in every edit I make, I can only apologise for causing you such distress and bother, and such creating such a confusing diff that you doubtless developed a migraine trying to understand it. Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Actually I retract that, Eric Baus was eminently wikifiable. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

ANI discussion[edit]

Since you just continued with you edits despite the previous section, I have now started an ANI discussion at WP:ANI#Violating of editing restrictions by Rich Farmbrough (again). Note that you just continue with the errors listed above, like adding an incorrect month with your wikify tag: [197]. Fram (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Help in Estonian Wikipedia[edit]

Hi. You helped us some time ago, which I really appreciate, and I wonder if you could do it again? So could you replace:
1) "[[Pilt:Med_1.png|Or]]" with "{{Kuld}}". Kuld
2) "[[Pilt:Med_2.png|Argent]]" with "{{Hõbe}}". Hõbe
3) "[[Pilt:Med_3.png|Bronze]]" with "{{Pronks}}". Pronks
The link is the place, where to find these. Thanks :) Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok should be done soon. Rich Farmbrough, 13:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

Great job, and fast too. Thanks. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Something more:

"[[Image:Med 1.png|Gold]]" → "{{Kuld}}"
"[[Image:Med 2.png|Silver]]" → "{{Hõbe}}"
"[[Image:Med 3.png|Bronze]]" → "{{Pronks}}"

Articles from one category to another (et:Kategooria:Suusatajad)

et:Kategooria:Itaalia suusatajad → Kategooria:Itaalia murdmaasuusatajad
et:Kategooria:Rootsi suusatajad → Kategooria:Rootsi murdmaasuusatajad
et:Kategooria:Norra suusatajad → Kategooria:Norra murdmaasuusatajad
et:Kategooria:Saksamaa suusatajad → Kategooria:Saksamaa murdmaasuusatajad
et:Kategooria:Soome suusatajad → Kategooria:Soome murdmaasuusatajad
et:Kategooria:Venemaa suusatajad → Kategooria:Venemaa murdmaasuusatajad
et:Kategooria:Eesti suusatajad → Kategooria:Eesti murdmaasuusatajad

Would be great, thanks. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you think, do you have time? Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Rich Farmbrough, 15:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Doing... Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

Done Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks again. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot; Bongwater's "The Big Sell-Out"[edit]

How familiar are you with the music of Bongwater? Because your bot tagged two items in the article with a "Says Who" tag. I'll send you a sound clip of "Ye Olde Backlash" if I can find it. ----DanTD (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, usually the response is simply "SmackBot didn't add the tags, merely dated them" - in this case I couldn't even see that. Rich Farmbrough, 17:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC).

About additional citations for verification for an article[edit]

Hello, sorry about my ignorance in Wikipedia procedures. In an article in which I participate (Flag of the Falkland Islands), appears a sign on top saying that the article needs references, posted by you. I looked for references and added them, but several times they have been removed by a user who says that the page doesn’t need them, but the sign saying that the article needs references is still there. So I add them again, and the user returns to reverse the changes. I think he hasn’t a logical argument to do that. I am asking to you what should I do? Another times, there were other people involved reviewing, but no this time. Thanks for the reply! (Moncho2002 (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

Perhaps you can succeed where others haven't that more cites are required for unverified facts, not as he persists in doing to add foreign language cites for material that is already cited. Good luck. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on article talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Anomie at 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Anomie at 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Anomie at 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Anomie at 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yadolah Dodge[edit]

The article was tagged as poorly referenced. I added some references (essentially ISBN codes for the books he wrotes) and links to other internal Wikipedia articles (the publishing companies Springer, Wiley and Oxford, well known to the scientific community). The biographical notice is available from a short notice here. If you think is ok can you remove the tag ? Let me know anyhow. All the best. --CH-stat (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

1970s in Andorra[edit]

Has been expanded. Thanks for sorting out the decades.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. Maybe I'm a bit overzealous with wanting year articles for each year of each country. Maybe decades would be best as a start and can branch out late if they have a lot for each year... Its definitely a detailed historical timeline which is needed I think f we are truly to be comprehensive...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure year articles will come in time, remember Andorra only has slightly larger population than Stamford. Rich Farmbrough, 18:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 21 February 2011[edit]

News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news

In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news

Versailles: Six-month residence in the Palace of Versailles for a Wikimedian

WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

untitled[edit]

died preparing an attack “ on the apostate Rushdie”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article531110.ece Pär Larsson (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC) [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 22:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI backlog[edit]

Rich, I don't want to sound pissy, and I appreciate that you're the only admin who's bothered to reply to my request at ANI—thankyou for that—but is it considered acceptable practice for a request to languish unresolved (and almost entirely uncommented on) on ANI for five days? I don't think I'm being entirely unreasonable in thinking that a better response is warranted. I had hoped that an admin would step in and revert the latest batch of vandalism, but since that request was ignored, I've had to do it myself.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish mine went without comment I am getting pounded by comments but people seem to like discussions these days so someone should be along soon enough. You may want to check and see if it got archived already. If a string goes 24 hours without comment the bot will auto archive it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it is not unreasonable. Unfortunately the denizens of ANI (I am not generally one, being too busy working on content pages, if not content) tend to be people who are drawn by thorny issues (and also a number of fans of drama, it has to be said). I did make a fairly half-hearted attempt at Wikipdia talk:ANI to try to revert the focus to incidents, but I'm not sure what happened. Unfortunately also, since admins are volunteers, there is little that can be guaranteed, I was however surprised to see something being completely missed like that. Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Huggle[edit]

Hi the bug is fixed but you still use old version I think you don't see my reply or dunno why you did not do it Petrb (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks . Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Why Merge?[edit]

Hi Rich. Regarding this, do you really think it is necessary to go through the entire Merge bureaucracy? The page could be PRODed, and all relevant material (if any) will be added to Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. Is there any reason to think that starting full Merge procedure will get any more responses than the PROD did? --Muhandes (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

IF it is prodded then mereged by the back-door it would be a copyright infringement. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

I see your point. Frankly, the page seems copypasted from the website, so I did not worry much for copyright, but lets go with it. I created a formal merger proposal. --Muhandes (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Merged References problem[edit]

Thank you for your help. I had just left a message thanking you at my Village pump Merged Reflinks entry right before you left your message on my talk page. :-) Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Auto = Yes[edit]

FYI - edit, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Heading text[edit]

Hi Rich. I'm doing some cleanup and came across this edit of yours. If that was a scripted edit you may consider adding some logic to the script to remove empty "Heading text" sections entirely rather than tag them as empty, since they're almost certainly just an edit test. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks , looks like that's what the "enhanced" tool bar inserts. "Headline text" is what the normal tool bar inserts - and I have logic to remove that, although it is often turned off. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Ah, interesting, I didn't know there were two different "flavors" of that. 28bytes (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to populate newly introduced parameters?[edit]

[198]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

[199]. Biographies is much better than biography because it answer the question "which notability guidelines?" and completes the sentence "notability for...". -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You could be right. It depends. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

User:Me-123567-Me‎[edit]

I appreciate your saying something to him, but I think you left out a couple important issues. One, his blanking of uncited entries was after an AFD already rejected his attempt to delete it for being uncited, and while another AFD was about to close as keep on the same kind of list for the same reasons. So his actions were directly contrary to established AFD consensus, and as J Greb said in the AN/I thread, POINTy and disruptive. Two, he abused a warning template after I reverted his blanking once. I'd like to see these issues addressed more expressly. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy rename stuff[edit]

Heya, someone noticed User:Rich Farmbrough/temp19/redir (for some odd reason), and was prob kidding when they said "hey, can someone please rename a few thousand articles?" - however, they were a bit surprised when I said "sure, OK".

I skimmed over it, and I realise they all need a manual sanity-check before any action, but... if you wanted, I can deal w/ all those, on that specific page.

You may well be planning to do it your own way, and that's fine.

Otherwise - if you'd like me to take on that specific task - those renames, then I can. Of course, I would check them all before doing it, and I'd take full responsibility for my yada yada.

The offer is there if you want it; poke on my talk. Best, Chzz ► 23:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

Hey SmackBot (Rich Farmbrough.) I'm just looking for a little more information on what exactly this bot is. It made an edit on a page I'm working on Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Thanks for any information you can provide, I'm just curious as to how the bot works. I'm doing this project as part of one of my college courses and my professor is also curious about SmackBot. Thanks! Ohheyheidi (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

mojibake[edit]

At least two of your recent automatic edits changed Unicode characters to junk. I've corrected the two that were on my watchlist. —Tamfang (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have to start checking the others.... Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

Done Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

MHP[edit]

Hi - You haven't responded, so I have no idea whether you saw this. Just pinging you here to make sure. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen it. Responded there. Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

unicode problems[edit]

[200] -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:39, 1 Marc-h 2011 (UTC)

Yadavilli (name)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Yadavilli (name), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://instapedia.com/m/Yadav.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

New functionality[edit]

This edit shown properties to Template:Ambox that I didn't know about and that replace part of the usages of Template:DMCA (which I liked very much). Debresser (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this is going to screw stuff up royally. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps you two would like to contribute to the discussion? If it is going to screw things up, it would be nice to know about it in advance. By the way I was going to ask if the "undated" category parameter is actually used anywhere because I haven't found it yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the whole reason for leaving the thread on my talk page is to remind me to go and comment. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough (talk)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011[edit]

News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news

In the news: Egypt and Jordan likely candidates for Wikimedia office; Sanger interview; brief news

Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times

WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases

Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit[edit]

Any reason why your sparse "copyedit" edits are going against the MOS and other guidelines in almost every respect? E.g. here: changing the capitalisation of templates for no good reason, changing U.S. to US against Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations, and removing the spaces from around one header and leaving it all the the others (making it inconsistent), instead of leaving it well alone? Here, you mix some good things with again changing U.S. to US, and changing reflist to Reflist. This also just replaced one parameter for no good reason, changed the capitalization for no reason either, and improved one thing at the same time. While you are no longer doing it automated (or at an automated speed at least), you are still doing the same changes. Why is it so hard to leave spaces in headers and template capitalization alone? Fram (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you are keeping busy. Funnily enough, in normal English we don't say "Fred Bloggs (profession)". Nothing is contrary to MoS. I edited in an alternative title for Others and changed it back if you must know. Why is it so hard to leave other editors alone? Rich Farmbrough, 09:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

In the first example, you change U.S. Army to US Army, but the MOS states "In American English, U.S. (with periods) is more common as the standard abbreviation for United States". None of the exceptions in the MOS apply. So why did you change this? Your change to the section header violated WP:CONSISTENCY, a general principle of the MOS. Apparently this time it was by accident, fine, but it still is "contrary to MOS", despite what you claim. The same inconsistency is apparent in your capitalization of templates: changing "wiktionary" and "tocright", but not bothering with "selfref" and "disambig". In general, you violate the second general principle of the MOS over and over again, previously in your AWB edits, now in your "copyedits": "Editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Spaces from section headers, capitalization of templates, changing the MOS supported U.S. to US, ..., these are all your personal preferences which you impose for no good reason. Fram (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary is a proper noun. "TOC right" is clearer than tocright. MoS does not support U.S. over US it simply states that U.S. is more common in American English, and specifically deprecates U.S. when juxtaposed with other county acronyms. Take a chill pill, preferably two. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

And which other "country acronyms" were in that article? ... Then again, I had previously said to you that changes like this and the thousands of identical ones shouldn't have been made in that form, introducing US State in all these articles when the actual article is at U.S. state. So this is clearly a continued MOS violation by you. Whether TOC right is clearer than tocright, and whether Template:Contents right wouldn't be even clearer still, is personal preference. And you can hardly claim that Reflist is clearer than reflist or any of the other capitalization changes you made. Apart from that, I am quite calm, thank you, so no need for a chill pill. Apart from that, I notice that I have ignored your "copyedits" when you were still mainly active through AWB, but I shouldn't have ignored these apparently. looking at some older edits with the same edit summary, there are plenty of problems. Changing BCE to BC is a pure MOS violation[201]. Other, more recent ones? Let's take e.g. the end of January: this is again just a capitalization change. 10:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This shows the article was created with BC style. And indeed you should have ignored them because you are not helping anything, you are serving no purpose, by your actions. You are not helping me, you are not helping yourself. You are not helping readers, or other editors. Please return to editing and allow me to do the same. Rich Farmbrough, 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 10:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SmackBot[edit]

Clobbers archive 75.57.242.120 (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Known and worked around AWB/API bug. Rich Farmbrough, 13:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

Bot jobs on main account[edit]

Regarding the "Replace deprecated 'WikiProject Space' banner" job you are carrying out using your main account.

Would you be able to do this job on a separate account?
Is there a BRFA for this task or did you decide this was unnecessary in this case?

Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I can run this on another account, though I don't know how that will help.
No BRFA should be needed for this task.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

It is something which you have repeatedly been requested to do. There are several reasons for this. One advantage is greater transparency: having thousands of trivial edits on your main account may obscure important edits you are making. Another is that it is easier to block a second account if something goes wrong with the process, whereas some may be more reluctant to block your main account. So, if you don't mind doing so, please run all bot jobs on a separate account in future.
How do you decide whether a BRFA is necessary or not? In some cases, when you have bypassed BRFA it has turned out in hindsight that further discussion would have been helpful.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would rather run everything on bot accounts, script assisted edits are extremely tedious, AWB edits even more so (though they deliver more value). However for anything up to a few thousand edits, unless it's going to be a recurring event it's just not worth it. My BRFA's languish for months at a time, when they are finally approved I often have to re-code from scratch - enthusiasm is somewhat diminished too. I prefer to get stuff done even if theoretically I should have 100 more BRFA's in the queue. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

That's a helpful response. Could we separate the two issues? Whether you run a job on a separate account or your main account does not seem to be affected by whether or not you obtain approval for a task. In other words, you could continue working with your script or AWB on a separate account. If you can agree that all future jobs be run on this other account could we consider this first matter resolved? About the second issue (whether to go to BRFA or not) I can appreciate your point that the delays can be demotivating. It seems that in the past your reluctance to face these long delays have meant that you've failed to get approval for some processes which would have benefitted from greater attention. Is this a fair assessment? I have a suggestion which might alleviate some concerns. On those occasions when you are confident that the job is sufficiently small and uncontroversial that getting explicit approval is unnecessary, could you at least discuss what you are going to do with at least one other editor (preferably more) before you start? And if you could link to a relevant discussion in your edit summary I think that would also help. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a reasonable but hidden assumption that, for example AWB is used for 100s or thousands of edits. Sometimes I use it for a handful of edits, even sometimes just one. This affects both your proposals. Secondly some things actually need preliminary work to determine if they are feasible, before it's worth having a discussion. Thirdly , often something can be floated and get no response until you actually start doing it (On one template I made a proposal, and after two days with no comment, implemented it - only to be told that I had "unilaterally" made a change). Subject to those reservations your ideas are sound, if people will actually behave better as a result. Experience to date is that some, at least, won't. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC).

Okay so would you agree to do any job that will involve more than 100 edits on a separate account, starting from today? And will you provide a decent edit summary with a link for those who want more information to go and find a relevant discussion or official approval? The summary "Minor fixes using AWB" is quite unhelpful and it is these minor edits which are causing most of the controversy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that it takes so long for a BRFA that even a moderate speed edit rate could accomplish most tasks long before the BRFA ever came back. I also question the need for yet another account (Rich Farmbrough lite as it were) when he already has several. IMO this would in fact make it even harder to determine the source especially since Rich is so well known in the community. It shouldn't matter if he is doing 5 edits or 5000 as long as it is a needed change (like updating the Space banners). Although I do admit that sinc he has so many fans and followers these days watching his edits that creating a new account might draw less attention for the Paparazzi. --Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping from a response from Rich on this, please. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

More than 24 hours on, still waiting for a response. Can we make any progress on this issue? You are still running bot jobs on your main account and still using non-desciptive edit summaries such as "minor fixes". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

They are not bot jobs, would that they were, they would be complete. I'll tweak the edit summary. Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

Controversial and/or incorrect AWB edits[edit]

Any reason that you are still changing the capitalisation of Persondata parameters, despite clear opposition to this from a number of people?[202][203][204][205][206][207], ... It's not as if your code cant' handle it, here it works just fine. This is the kind of edit you shouldn't be making with AWB (lots of diff noise, but no actual change to the page or anything related to it). Your AWB edits also again contain errors which have been pointed out to you previously, like adding the same parameter twice with different values[208] or adding new tags with the wrong month[209][210][211]. Fram (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to request the folks at AWB to ensure that the Personendata field names are in lower case? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Considering that the previous discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Persondata#Uppercase parameters was just last month and didn't support the change from uppercase to lowercase; and considering that the actual template Template:Persondata uses uppercase in its documentation (and most pages that have persondata use uppercase as well), I see no reason to change AWB (which wouldn't affect Rich anyway, probably, since his "AWB" edits are not really standard AWB anyway). Whether newly added Persondata templates should use upper- or lowercase parameters, or leave it up to whatever the editor prefers, is a different discussion. But changing ones already there from the documented version to a personally preferred version, with the help of automated tools to speed up the conversion, is a clear violation of the rules of use of AWB, and of MOS:STABILITY. Fram (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the date is that because of limitations in the WikiMedia software the date has to be left explicitly - this means code needs monthly updating. It's really not a big deal if a few articles get put in the wrong bucket. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

So, you just continue with this[212][213]? What a surprise... By the way, any reason why you keep the "auto=yes" when you change "unreferenced" to "refimprove"? That parameter is not supported in that template, and I assume that you have actually chcked the articles, so the tag isn't "auto-"added anymore anyway... Oh, and the obligatory actual error is also present: here you have corrected the date you use in the new tags, but adding the year twice is not really helpful... Fram (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes because I upgraded all my rules last night, finishing at about 6:30 am, and didn't add back the one that removes auto=yes from refimprove tags. Rich Farmbrough, 13:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

You know you complained about duplicate parameters and I accommodated you, you complained about the order of the parameters and and I accommodated you, then you complained about mixed case and and I accommodated you. Lower case are standard for parameters. I'm not even changing every occurrence I come across, just those where a new parameter is added. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Or stated otherwise: you made multiple errors with duplicate parameters until I repeatedly pointed this out to you (well, you even did it today, as indicated above[214], so it's not really clear whether you really "accommodated" anything); you changed the order of parameters for no good reason, until I pointed this out to you; you mixed uppercase and lowercase parameters in one template, for no good reason, until I pointed this out to you; basically, you don't check your AWB edits thoroughly enough by far, but you just continue despite numerous complaints, restrictions, and blocks. The uppercase vs. lowercase parameters for Persondata has been discussed with you by other people than me, and at the template page: it is clear that there is no consensus for your position. Therefor, you should not be doing this. This has nothing to do with "accommodating" me, this is just following some basic polices and guidelines, and the rules of use of AWB. Fram (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As to the actual error I am investigating that now. That is a useful bug report, which I nearly missed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Done Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Apart from continuation of the above, you also violate your editing restriction with this. Any reason, by the way, why you are in many other edits also changing "reflist" and "references/" to "Reflist"? These are not included in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects, and I thought you were not supposed to change the capitalization of templates (certainly not in cases wher you otherwise don't change it, like with reflist). Fram (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, reverted. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Above you said: "I'm not even changing every occurrence I come across, just those where a new parameter is added." Oh really? [215] Fram (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes "date of birth" is added there. Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

I don't have a problem with the other edits but I do agree that we shouldn't be changing persondata to lowercase unless there is some technical reason for this that I do not understand I think leaving it all caps, due to the unique nature and purpose of the template, is best. In the past I have found that the date fields in the persondata template sometimes confuse the date fields in things like infoboxes when they are lowercase. Even in some cases adding the parameters again because they weren't recognized. If they are uppercase I have not seen a problem. --Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The re-adding problem is, I believe, resolved in AWB. Possibly if we want to emphasize the unusual nature (it's not unique) of the template, we should call it {{Meta data}}. Persondata was just foisted on us by de:, who do things very differently in some respects, without tailoring it the en: practices - indeed we could have (could still) incorporate "Person authority" (terrible name, almost worse than "Normdaten") into the template, simplifying things a lot. Rich Farmbrough, 16:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

I actually agree that calling it persondata is a bit bland and not very evident of its purpose. Meta data person I think would be more appropriate and better explain what its purpose is. Especially if at some point in the future we start creating metadata templates for other things like ships, buildings or locations for example. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and the reason we have invented natural language is to express the complex concepts we want to express, real world things actually take a lot of coercion into words, take the height of buildings, for example, there is a whole sub-science in defining the top and bottom, and even what constitutes a building, that is known only to tall-building buffs. And yet we are quite happy to talk about the height of most buildings that probably haven't used these definitions, or even to simply cl something a "four story building". Even the person who does use Persondata argued for the retention of what are in effect natural language markers. Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

My apologies, I missed that. Fram (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC).

Considering my mistake above, I'll try to bring this one in a less snarky manner, but I think that this edit changed the capitalization of the Persondata parameters without any change to the values, and additionally it added a "date" parameter to the multiple issues tag, which doesn't use a "date" parameter... Here here and here you use the capitalized version of the defaultsort for the persondata, instead of the article title (Mac vs. mac). You still use incorrect months in new tags[216]. And of course I still oppose you changing uppercase persondata parameters to lowercase ones, and Kumioko above does as well (and others did in other discussions). Please stop doing this until you have a consensus for it. Fram (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The name parameter had previously been added. Multiple issues does take a date parameter, although it is usually unused. I hope to change that soon. The "mac" issue is interesting, and can be addressed I suppose at AWB level - i am already fixing a lot of "Of" and "02" but in the case of mac I can't assume that "mac" is correct and "Mac" wrong, so a regex fix would be harder. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Dating for {{multiple issues}} is done by placing the date as the value of each issue parameter so each issue can have its own date. |date= is used only in conjunction with |expert= when that parameter is used for the type of expert needed. Please don't go making one of your "I'm going to change a widely-used template without discussion because I think I know best" edits. Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 19:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am aware, among other reasons, since I created {{Multiple issues/message}}. Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Since AnomieBot can do the tagging with no mistakes why the two bots don't cooperate? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since AnomieBot can do the tagging with no mistakes why don't we just let AnomieBot do the tagging? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anomiebot does make mistakes but it doesn't have 5 or 6 edits checking every edit looking for a problem to report. I have noticed occasional hickups in Anomiebots edits but it wasn't what I would consider an error so much as a minor edit so I didn't bother reporting it. I don't think its a problem to have 2 bots doing the same task (I think they both do changes the other doesn't) but I do agree that there are some edits that need to stop here. --Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is just about the dating of tags, then SmackBot is currently running without much problems as well. The problems mainly happen when other edits are combined with it (other Smackbot tasks in the past, and the current AWB edits). Fram (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't just that edit and as far as I am concerned the dating of tags falls under the Minor/trivial edit that CBM keeps harping is not allowed. What does it really mean if the tag has a date, very little, the problem still exists regardless of how long its been there and few if any are actually looking at the oldest ones first. I am not going to open that can of worms here though because frankly I don't have a problem with the edit aside from my feelings that its unimportant. I make the assumption that Smackbot does other things based on the fact that SmackBot 42 is pending a bot request. I realize not all got approved and some were probably one off runs that are done but that leaves at least a few items in the 41 previous requests that don't pertain to dating maintenance tags. I have to assume that there are some in there that are not covered by another bot. Even if they are Rich frankly spends far more time on here than most of the other operators combined so the chances are higher he will get it done faster, even if the rate of inconsequential edits is higher. --Kumioko (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of SmackBot's other tasks are not happening right now, because we have transitioned from a laid back "get things done" approach (the essence of Wiki) to an "OMG he made an edit, the world will end" approach. It's no big deal. Things that would be done in one edit will take maybe 10, and those complaining about "unnecessary edits" "Clogged watchlists" and "long histories" will be happy they did the right thing because, they will say to themselves (and each other, probably) "things would have been even worse if we had done nothing". And things will take 10 years that should take 2 months, but no-one will know. And eventually, I suspect, maybe in 4 years maybe in 20, the project will be more and more locked down, and part of the establishment, and become the Encyclopaedia Britannica of Web 3.0 - some new entry will take its role as the cutting edge place to go to find things out, not, maybe, a bad thing. Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

You sir are absolutely right and evidence of that is all around us. Less people using it, less people editing it, less edits being made, more articles being deleted, more people discussing and less people editing, we already have more rules and policies than any US state has Rules for driving, etc. Why do today what you can put off till tomorrow. Hard work pays off over time but laziness and complacency pay off now. (shaking my head) every day I get closer and closer to my last edit! --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is irrelevant of what's going on here. I also don't like the "don't disturb the watchlists" argument but this argument is one reason that I support Rich/SmackBot to do as much as possible in 1 run. I also try most of the things to be part of awb in order to have control of bugs, exceptions, etc. But, right now, SmackBot adds tags in a way that produces more bugs than anomiebot and persondata in a way that produces more bugs than rjw's bot. awb provides a way to add persondata with no bugs but Rich uses a different method! So, my problem is not "many edits" or "trivial edits" but "wrong edits" (duplicated entries in persondata, wrong date tags etc.) and "unnecessary changes". I also get a lot of fire from Carl and others but we have to find some way to work all together. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The bot does not, as far as I know have any problems, except that I don't use AWB for it much if at all now -throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and making development a question of perl rather than regex/C#. Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Oh and AWB does make mistakes in the name part of Persondata. Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

I am assuming that one of the "errors" Magioladitis is mentioning is the lowercasing of the persondata and the random casing changes the some (although I also prefer the templates to have an uppercase first letter) have a problem with. Perhaps it is not the bot but your personal usage of AWB with your main account (i'm not really sure and I'm not really sure it matters). Personally the lowercasing of the persondata is the one I find most annoying and could personally care less about a few unneeded casing changes or minor/trivial edits. Even the Persondata isn't something I would complain about since it isnt't "breaking something", but I don't agree with it and prefer the persondata to be uppercase. --Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

For example: AWB fixed the date bug inside cite templates and I see no reason to use a custom made function that adds wrong dates (January 2011 instead of March 2011). This is minor of course but makes me feel insecure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The version I have still adds {Subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME} Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

Javascript in categories[edit]

The following .js pages are categorised in clean-up cats

User talk page User:Gary King/smaller templates.js: message to leave {{subst:Javascript in categories| User:Gary King/smaller templates.js}}
User talk page User:Gimmetrow/test.js: message to leave {{subst:Javascript in categories| User:Gimmetrow/test.js}}
User talk page User:Gregbard/twinklespeedy.js: message to leave {{subst:Javascript in categories| User:Gregbard/twinklespeedy.js}}
User talk page User:Timotab/twinklespeedy.js: message to leave "I'll take care of this" user inactive since my last message in January.
User talk page User:Wikidudeman/speeedy.js: message to leave "I'll take care of this" user inactive since my last message in January.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

All fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Teuthidodrilus[edit]

Hello! Seems to me you've made a mistake in the article. The term "notochaetae" usually refers to "bristles" not "tentacles". As far as I understood these worms have ten tentacle-like anterior appendages made of soft tissue. The notochaetae (dorsal bristles) are chitinous. You may find some details in the video. Possessing long anterior tentacles is rather common feature in polychaetes especially in cirratulid. However they are not so long in benthic forms. The morphology of notochaetes of Teuthidodrilus are posed as unusual in the abstract of Osborn's et al. paper. Unfortunately I've no access to the full text paper (possibly you have it) and can't get to know what does «concavo-convex paddles» look like and whether a paddle consists of single or multiple bristles. If it's just a paddle-like single notochaeta there's no wonder. Mithril (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I've find some "close up" photo. The notochaetae are very special. Mithril (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "tentacles" was added by Diver Dave in this edit. ". Ten tentacles as long or longer than its body protrude from its head, along with six pairs of curved nuchal organs that allow the animal to taste and smell underwater.^{[citation needed]}" which seems to agree with what you say. I don't think I have changed anything relating to notochaetae in that article. Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

I must have become crazy. How did I get to your discussion page instead of his one? I'm greatly sorry. Mithril (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It's all interesting. Rich Farmbrough, 02:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

CFX Bank History[edit]

Hi, Just went thru the history of CFX Bank.The bank was not formed in 2006.It was formed much earlier and in 2004 (not 2006) it merged with Century Bank. This link is useful - http://allafrica.com/stories/200404160641.html

Please follow the link which shows CFX Bank was in existance as of REGISTERED BANKING INSTITUTIONS: 30 JUNE, 2003 http://www.rbz.co.zw/300603/appendix2.asp

In addition look at the lastest report which shows CFX has been liquidated mostly due to the ownership dispute with EX-ENG Capital director.So on its History its relevant to include the ownership dispute which is well documented such that it cant be eliminated from CFX History.Please follow link.

http://www.newsday.co.zw/article/2011-03-14-cfx-to-windup-operations

And this link too http://www.assetrecovery.org/kc/node/dc1241d3-4f52-11de-bacd-a7d8a60b2a36.0;jsessionid=809A69B1CD59C82ACE33458D59AEE7D7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HAILTHECHIEF (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Note[edit]

The AUTOMOBILE magazine, August 1983.

SmackBot[edit]

Smackbot, Rich, Spencer et al. Please let us know what we need to send to you so you can stop reverting the University School Wikipedia page. There are descriptions (such as "the Greater Cleveland Ohio area" that we want to use - why are these changes being reverted? Similar, "Other Championships" is an appropriate heading for Tennis and Lacrosse because these are not OHSAA sports. The list goes on and on... Please advise what we need to provide you to prevent the constant editing of our webpage. Thank you. K. Pleasant, University School Director of Marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcpleasant (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Userspace[edit]

Hi, I notice you have been going over my user sub-pages and wondered if there was an issue? Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No issue, the {{Userspace draft}} template needs to be dated, most are anyway, I generally pick up any undated ones once a month, but some of these may be a little older. Rich Farmbrough, 11:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

"The" versus "the Beatles"[edit]

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Category replacement script has errors[edit]

It appears as if the script you use for the semi-automatic category replacement in album articles has an error (or the log file it is based on is not correct), since many of the more recent ones didn't do what they were supposed to do, according to the edit summary: [217][218][219][220][221]. Fram (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Aware of problems and resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

FYI, see Mysterious glitch (cont.)[edit]

See Mysterious glitch (cont.). 75.47.154.175 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Puducherry[edit]

Please, read this discussion! --Treisijs (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot and {{tone}}[edit]

Hi, looks like there's a minor error with SmackBot doing a replacement on the {{tone}} tag. I noticed that in an article it replaced "tone" with ":Inappropriate tone"... the extra colon at the front broke the syntax (diff). I removed the colon at everything's fine now. --Drm310 (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like an intermittent problem, will investigate further. ~~

ISO 3166 templates[edit]

There are 5895 templates in Category:ISO 3166 code from name templates, 4060 in Category:ISO 3166 name from code templates, 245 in Category:ISO 3166 name from code country templates, and 1868 in Category:ISO 3166 code from name country templates, or in total some 12,000 templates you created over 6 months ago. At first glance, none of these is used anywhere. Can you indicate whether and where these are used (and if so, which categories of these are and which aren't), or if they aren't used, why they shouldn't be deleted (per WP:TFD, "Reasons to delete a template 3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used") Fram (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is a likelihood of these being used as they are designed particularly for infoboxes, where I intend to use them. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Could you give an actual example for each of the four groups of where and how you intend someday to use them? Fram (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of examples where people would prefer to type "ISO 3166 code Hungary Veszprém City" instead of just HU-VM, or if it has to be templated anyway, why it would be easier to have 12000 separate templates than one (or four, or at most one per country) like with Template:CountryAbbr, which actually is in widespread use. Fram (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the lot at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 27. Fram (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot: spacing before stub tags[edit]

Last month, the stubs guideline was edited so that it now recommends adding only one line, not two, before stub tags. I recall that, at one time, SmackBot performed these types of edits as part of gen-fixes; I am not sure if that is still the case but, in case it is, I wanted to let you know of the change. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Black Falcon, that's weird. Because the text was there for two years and it was changed as minor edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not that surprised because I have noticed that 2 spaces now seems to be a little too much, and put it down to the DEFAULTSORT, persondata, and other new gubbins, but it could be that the css fix that we wanted years back has finally gone live. But I hadn't seen anything about it anywhere. Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia_talk:Stub/Archive_7#.22But_before_the_inter-Wiki_links.22 The proposal for the text in the project page

Wikipedia_talk:Stub/Archive_8#Spacing Extensive discussion which also came up with CSS as the solution.

Rich Farmbrough, 09:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

This page shows that 2 blank lines are needed to have the desired spaceing. One and zero are the same as we said in the referenced discussion (referenced in the change to the docs). Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

Only thing we should change is to count the DEFAULTSORT as not interrupting the blank line count. Rich Farmbrough, 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC).

After the guideline was changed, I made an AWB request at WP:AWB/FR#One blank line before stub templates. If you disagree with the change to the guidelines, you should make your point here before AWB is changed. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reopened the discussion here. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot: Commons template[edit]

SmackBot broke a Commons template, causing the Commons link to disappear, and creating a DEFAULTSORT conflict. This also happened a few days ago; if it helps, I could try to pore through my contributions to find where I fixed it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's due to the redirect using a superfluous : "#redirect [:template:blah]" - code (and redirect) fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC).

Errors[edit]

If you correct an error you made[222], please make sure that your correction (or your earlier edit) are actually relevant. Adding an "uncategorized" tag to a good article with 20 categories is not really appropriate.

And you didn't correct this instance of unsubstituted dates...

Test stubs[edit]

Hi Rich... just came across this in the list of wanted categories... should you perhaps think about uncoupling the cat from these tests, or are you still working on them? Grutness...wha? 14:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, takes me back.... I deleted most of the test pages, cat should be empty. Rich Farmbrough, 10:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

Hi with regards, to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Rasner how can I help, can you please clarify, how, or where this needs to be "cleanup" I would appreciate your thoughts, many thanks Theillusioner (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't tag it, but maybe things like the non-sentence "Known for funny close-up magic." ? "is asst to the principal at"? Also there are some WP specific style issues, capitals in headers, header for the lead, links in the body text are not usually done, rather they go in the "external links" section or as references/footnotes. Rich Farmbrough, 09:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC).

Many thanks for the reply; only your name is sited in the watch list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SmackBot

Anyhow, I will take your suggestions under consideration, thank you, I do feel it’s much better that editors take time explain where we go wrong, not just delete our work… “of acorns grow”

But pray tell, who keeps putting this "close connection with its subject" and closing off the article. Initially, thought I had written this in an "neutral point of view" I even corrected some errors here too;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_401#Credits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_Streets#Cast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Visitation_%28film%29#Cast

If I may be candid, rather than just close off an article without any detailed explanation, or solution, I do think it would be more productive to open the talk page then we can discuss amicably, and I can help to comply and make the article a more notable piece…thank you

FYI I have never met or spoken to the subject

Theillusioner (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Request[edit]

Hi, Rich! Are you taking any requests for bot maintenance runs at the moment? I have a relatively small batch of replacements that needs to be made. Please let me know either way. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 24, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)

Tell me what needs doing and I'll AWB it if I can, else we can find someone to take care of it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

It's about updating the articles using {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}}. It was originally designed with a field for the 2002 Census figures. However, with the 2010 Census results forthcoming, the existing setup will quickly become confusing. Here's a list of changes that need to be made:

pop_census parameter needs to be replaced with pop_2002census;
pop_census_rank parameter needs to be replaced with pop_2002census_rank;
pop_census_ref parameter needs to be replaced with pop_2002census_ref;
where there is no pop_census_ref parameter available (which is most cases) but there is a value in pop_census, the following parameter needs to be added:
|pop_2002census_ref=<ref name="PopCensus">{{ru-pop-ref|2002Census}}</ref>

I've already updated the infobox template to support these parameters, so it's just the matter of replacing the old instances. The maintenance category you can use for this task is Category:Russian inhabited locality articles requiring maintenance. If you could help with this, it'd be greatly appreciated! Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 24, 2011; 18:20 (UTC)

I've just noticed this, and thought that before you start it on the large scale, I should ask if you could leave the template name as it is (even if it's a redirect like {{Infobox Russian city}}, and place the pop_2002census_ref (note that in that diff you used pop_census_ref) after pop_2002census and pop_2002census_rank, if it's not too much trouble. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 24, 2011; 20:27 (UTC)

Can all be done. Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

Thanks a bunch! This was immensely helpful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2011; 13:51 (UTC)

New AWB snapshot available[edit]

Better download this http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/AutoWikiBrowser5201_rev7660.zip Optimised loading, much faster and less buggy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ty. Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 4 April 2011[edit]

News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news

In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news

Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?

WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Barn Church[edit]

Hi Rich: How can I best pursue a request to have the Barn Church page renamed? Please see my comments on that article's Talk page. Thanks Headhitter (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough, 10:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

How do I delete my Daniel Sargent article? I don't want to be considered a vandal, but I'm the one who made the article in the first place. I'm going to move his research from published works to the globalization article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indevar (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I requested it be speedy deleted per a request of the creator and referenced this talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

Apparent violations of AWB rules and of your editing restriction[edit]

I may have missed something, but at first sight you violated AWB rules of use and your editing restriction when you made 300plus edits removing a ":" after "redirect", even though this doesn't change the way these redirects work or look at all (e.g. [223][224]). Any reason for this? Fram (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that these edits also include pages where you didn't even remove a ":" or change anything else (perhaps removed a trailing space or inserted a space after "redirect"), like [225][226][227][228] or just changed the capitalisation of "redirect"[229]. This also included changing "nowikied" text in two year old AfC pages, like [230][231][232]. Fram (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ThisparticularobsoletesyntacisnotedforcausingproblemsforthatreasonIhaveapprovaltoremovethecolon.Ontheotherhandthefewwherethespacewasinsertedseemedworthwhilesavingasspacesareimortanttoreadabilityalthoughperhapsyoudontagree. Rich Farmbrough, 11:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

What problems? Approved where and by whom? Apart from that, very funny, but the readability of redirect pages is not really important, and trailing spaces (or the capitalization of "redirect") have no real benefit even for this... Fram (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ownership/personal attacks[edit]

Hey, just a quick question. Is repeatedly accusing another editor of article ownership considered a personal attack? I am curious. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting question. I would say it depends on the context. Really citing WP:OWN to a putative owner is only useful if they acknowledge it, or at last stop being OWNy. Which is only going to happen if they are being OWNy. but on the substantive point, I would say it is not a personal attack if it is a.) done in good faith and b.) done to improve the encyclopaedia. I would add a rider that "accusing" is not very often a good idea, as it a conflictive approach, softening words can make for far more productive discourse. Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

As you might imagine, I am not asking simply out of idle curiosity. I have been accused, more than once, in the past week, of article ownership, in cases in which I believe the accusation to be false. The editor who made said accusations has since reverted my edits, with edit summaries that are, at best, snide and accusatory, and certainly not designed to elicit a positive response. The situation is going to continue to worsen unless I decide to stop editing the article, which I refuse to do, since I believe my edits have, overall, been positive. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, well then, ask them to stop the "accusations", ask them to discuss the content and generally promote the D part of BRD. Certainly they should not be making "snide and accusatory" remarks in the edit summary, the edit summary should address the edit, not other editors. And discussion, while it does sometimes take place in summaries should ideally be on the talk page - where consensus can often be reached if there's more than two editors. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Ok, I realize that was hopelessly vague, so why don't I give you some specifics?

On the 8th, I removed a film from List of steampunk works because the film article never describes it as steampunk, and the ref. provided was questionable. Andy Dingley reverted with his first edit summary accusing me of ownership issues. Andy and I have differed in the past, and he has accuse me of article ownership before.

Then, on the 10th, I removed an addition to the Steampunk article, stating that the ref. provided was to a primary source and thus not reliable. Andy reverted, stating that the individual in question is notable, which was not the issue. I reverted, restating my original argument, and asking that he not simply revert my edits on sight. He reverted yet again, stating, essentially, that I should find a reference. Now, one can argue that, as an editor, I share the responsibility to source the articles that I edit. But, that does not mean that I should refrain from removing content that is not adequately referenced. I would still argue that the content in question is of unproven notability (regardless of the notability of the composer) and the source provided is still a primary source that proves nothing more than that the piece exists and was commissioned by Carnegie Hall. That said, I am not going to revert again.

The larger issue, I believe, is my ability to edit these articles without having to pass muster with Andy Dingley, who, by his actions, is showing some ownership issues of his own. I would like this to stop. I do not want it to continue to escalate. I am asking for your advice/intervention, both as an administrator and an experienced editor. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Femto Bot[edit]

Why does this bot keep recreating Category:Articles with trivia sections from October 2007--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it keeps becoming non-empty. Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC).

Note: Feature needed to cite a member page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

NL-Aid has published a list of evidence against the organisation. Less proof has been submitted for UFO's around the world. I would take it very serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joop Versteggen (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Non-free game cover[edit]

I can't figure out why, but your recent change to the template is causing {[[:Category:|Category:]]} to be added to image description pages. Could you take a look at it and see what's wrong? Reach Out to the Truth 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

Done Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

NASA images[edit]

Does NASA have images without border boundaries? Answer here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I beleive there's something called the "blue marble" collection. Rich Farmbrough, 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm looking for maps of the middle east, do you also know if I am allowed to edit NASA images? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to check the specific image, but the majority of NASA product is I beleive public domain as a product of a US Federal agency, which means you can do what you like with it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

Stationyears[edit]

Rich, what was the point of this edit? Your edit summary "make categories explicit" doesn't make sense. A DEFAULTSORT has been added, true; but the rest has little to do with categorisation - some whitespace has been condensed, a {{end box}} was changed to {{s-end}}, and {{stationyears}} was moved. Regarding this last, it was doing no harm where it was - all it does is categorise the article, so I believe that it's best placed with the categories. All in all, I think your edit fails WP:AWB#Rules of use item 4, unless there's something subtle which I've missed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was a hiccup. Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

So I guess you don't mind if I revive the year-span templates. ----DanTD (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to have content categories transcluded by template. There are many reasons for this – editors cannot see the category in the wikitext; removing or restructuring the category is made more difficult (partly because automated processes will not work); inappropriate articles and non-article pages may get added to the category; sort keys may be unavailable to be customised per category; ordering of categories on the page is less controllable; and the "incategory" search term will not find such pages." Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

Article on Ajai R. Singh[edit]

Have added references from reliable 3rd party sources as Section 5.1. You may decide to remove tag. Classicalmusictherapy (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will review. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

request to visit the article[edit]

hi, you are requested to visit the article entitled, Kapil Muni Tiwary and see the references provided there. I am sure some of the tags attached to the article are not necessary now. Thank you for your guidance. Suggestions for improvement are always welcome. --arunbandana 06:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 05:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will review. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 14 March 2011[edit]

News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news

In the news: Paying US$1,000 to correct a Wikipedia error; brief news

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem

Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news

Editcountitis: Report on Editcountitis. 27% of all edits have been done by just 4,000 editors

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in ArbCom Proposed Decision[edit]

Here. NW (Talk) 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

These edits seem to violate your edit restrictions and the AWB rules of use[edit]

[233][234][235][236][237]. Fram (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Arimaa[edit]

Your bot slapped a "notability" notice on the Arimaa page. I'm sure just a couple of minutes perusing the links at the bottom of the page and a Google search will convince you of Arimaa's "notability." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brânză topită[edit]

Hello, please take a look at this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brânză topită. Burghiu (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What is american listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What is american. Since you had some involvement with the What is american redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Being bold[edit]

Hey, just to let you know I'm being bold and redirecting Category:Pages using magic words with template syntax to Category:Pages which use a template in place of a magic word. You created both, but the latter was created earlier and has an easier to understand title. If you disagree, feel free to revert and drop a note on my talk page :) Sorry to bug you! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011[edit]

News and notes: NPG copyright irony; Citizendium's finances; Credo accounts donated; brief news

In the news: Ward Cunningham's rich child; Indian donations; data mining Wikipedia; brief news

WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine

Features and admins: Best of the week

Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases

Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot added a citation template[edit]

[238] I could understand a human wanting a citation template after that sentence, but why would a bot want a citation there? It isn't replacing any previous template. Did it just drop a citation template randomly into an article? Art LaPella (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the AI module seems to have upgraded itself without permission. And I can't seem to access that directory any more.... Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

(.) Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

Never mind, I must have linked two edits together. Art LaPella (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Booth Hi Rich, just been helping with correcting Archbishop Booth's page (& note you were helpfully suggesting where further refs required. My big problem now is how to get his coat of arms uploaded - I am finding this to be very difficult and can only presume it's to do with licensing. Once we are acquainted (ie upon you're reply) and can detail why this is a non-issue. Await yrs Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.155.28 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

Smackbot errors to revert please[edit]

I hadn't noticed until now, but when smackbot was unlinking years at the very end of 2009 (aha - I was away on holiday!) it unlinked 210 deliberate year links on the page range 1800 in New Zealand through to 2011 in New Zealand, so

For world events and topics in 1897 not specifically related to New Zealand see: 1897 became

For world events and topics in 1897 not specifically related to New Zealand see: 1897

which really kind of defeats the point! Could you please arrange for the bot to fix these? (some have been fixed manually already) dramatic (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can do, or I could remove the sentences? Seems a bit unlikely that someone will get to the end of these articles and realise they actually want to look at the generic year article.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

Thank you. I think its still worthwhile having them there. Some readers might be unaware that we have general articles on the years. dramatic (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot causing false positives in table diff?[edit]

Check out this SmackBot diff; lots of table lines marked as changes that aren't really changes. Is this a line-ending thing? 87.82.201.203 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, effectively that should be a one-time cleanup. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

Broken math markup[edit]

SmackBot broke the math markup in transmission line with this edit which removed the trailing spaces from inside the math tags. I am guessing that the line was not recognised as being LaTeX because the tags were not on the same line. SpinningSpark 17:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I checked the entire database for trailing spaces in math markup expressions some months ago, and found only one which did have the math tag, so I was fairly relaxed about that possibility. Maybe I have to think again on that. Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC).

Fixed release p609. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC).

D.G.S.Dinakaran.[edit]

Kindly clarify what clarification you would like to have on someone`s Date of birth, place of birth, Parents, etc. after & when they were quoted from a published reference source?--Kumaripriya (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

==Dated cleanup tags==

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC).

Poke[edit]

Hey RF, Just leaving a note here reminding you to take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40. Thanks! -- Tim 1357 ^talk 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

ship by year categories[edit]

About a year ago you ran a program that was making changes like this to ship articles that need a "by year" category. I can no longer find the threads where this was discussed but I believe that you ran this using another editor's script. If it's possible for you to dig up that script again I would be grateful if you could run it again. Brad (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember much of the details but I do remember there was some complexity with

ships with no laid down date / launch date etc.. there was a hierarchy of fields to get the year from
the categories only goo back by year to a certain point, and from then are decades and centuries

I'll try and look for the settings, but as it was a one-off I may well have tweaked them as I worked through the groups and only have the comissoned/centuries version left. Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

I found the thread at botreq. It would be the same routine this time around as well. Likely there will be less articles than the last time you ran it. Individual years run from 1850 to the present and by decade from the 1600s to 1840s. But no hurry on this one. Actually, let me think about other chores that could be done at the same time so as not to upset the edit police. Brad (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a few thousand candidates at first glance - going by {{Infobox ship begin}}, but most are actually "class" articles. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Well I'm not sure whether you're adding the by year categories by hand or by bot, but either way I think you should stop. I found three or four incorrect entries in your last three or four edits. Ship commission dates are not ship launch dates, which is what the "by year" categories list. Ships can often be commissioned years after they are built, particularly in the case of merchant ships purchased by the Navy as auxiliaries etc. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If they have no launch date and no completed date, then I can leave them blank, awaiting further discussion, that's no problem. Of course sometimes there is acquired date, maiden voyage date or laid down date, which I can use if appropriate. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC).

Unfortunately, you seem to be missing at least some of those as well. I looked over half a dozen edits and found at least three where a "laid down" or other date was there and you still used the commission date. So if you are going to continue this, I think you will need to take more care. Apart from that, I think it would be better if you left the category blank if you only have a commission date. The U.S. Navy had hundreds of requisitioned ships in numerous wars where the launch date was long before the commission date. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I did notice some civil war ships were dated (in the title) by the date of acquisition (e.g. USS Calypso (1863)), but I can use launched, completed, failing that and laid down finally, otherwise leave blank. Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC).

Guidelines

By year categories should be added when infobox ship career has:

A year in |launched= or
A year in |completed=

Any other heading is too arbitrary to count on. The idea behind 'ship by year' was to identify what year the ship was built. Class articles are another challenge as classes of ships sometimes span a decade in which they're built. If a class of ships were built during the 1970s then 1970s ships would suffice. But some classes spanned decades and |Built range= is not always filled in for Infobox ship class overview. Any ideas on how ship class articles could be done? Brad (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know that people were adding year dates to ship classes. That does seem a bit awkward to me. Can you point me to an example?

In regards to the by year guidelines you mention, I would endorse those. There is still the question however of whether we should prefer launch dates or completion dates (I can't see anything about by year categories in the guideline BTW). Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When Sam set up the categories he was using launched as the preference, and when I added a lot of ships later I was using the same priority. The first couple I looked at, however included one where "laid down" was equal to "commissioned" this was eminently categorisable of course. Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

We have always gone with a preference on launch date over completed. Sometimes one is filled in over the other or both. As for class articles, why would a year category be the wrong thing to do? The ships were built during a decade and sometime two decades. You complain; I educate. Brad (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If classes are to be categorised mayeb they should be

Top sorted
In all the decades which apply.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you mean. Top sorted? Brad (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, something like [Category:1860s ships| Brigade class destroyer] so that the classes come before individual ships. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

I think it would be best to not top sort just now. That's something requiring a project conversation. Have you figured out a way of determining a decade for the class articles that don't a built range filled in? Brad (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Pages with missing references list/fix log[edit]

Hi. SmackBot has not touched Category talk:Pages with missing references list/fix log in over a month. Should it still be fixing pages with a missing references list? Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 03:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should. I have run it again and will try to implement a regular program. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

Criticisms vs. criticism in titles[edit]

Editor Marcus has again requested a move at Talk:Criticisms of socialism#Requested move 2, despite the failure of the 10 December 2010 to 21 January 2011 attempted move. I am notifying you as you were a commenter in the original discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011[edit]

News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news

In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news

WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify

Features and admins: Featured list milestone

Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?

Technology report: UploadWizard release; code review – should MediaWiki move to Git?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Error[edit]

I'm sure you will have a better idea of what you meant to do here than I do. As I'm sure you already know, redirecting the category will have no effect if the category is being populated by a template. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes an "s" was omitted. Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Bot inserted a Who tag?[edit]

In [239] this edit, SmackBot inserted a "who" tag. I don't think bots should insert such tags from context automatically. Did you insert it manually (which I think you should better not do with a botaccount for the obvious risk of confusion) or did the bot insert it by some rule? In this case I think enough cites for the "Many" are given after the next sentence, so I would personally just remove the tag... -- Windharp (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(One intermediate revision by one user not shown). Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC).

Scratching head* Ah yes, now that you mention that... Sy to have bothered you. -- Windharp (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Spurious figures within 'undated' datesort[edit]

There are supposed to be four articles in {{Copyedit_progress}} classified as "undated". However, upon clicking on the category, there are no articles. Any idea what could be causing the problem? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes the four sub cats, which are not by month. There either needs to be a fix factor of 4 in the the progress box call, or Category:Monthly clean up category (Wikipedia articles needing copy edit) counter in the subcats. I opted for the latter. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

Help.[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to help a friend fixing her David L Boushey article, I usually work with webpages, but this is very different that using Dreamweaver to make a webpage (thing that I know how to do, that is why she ask me for help), So, I noticed that you and others "administrators" left some notes on top of the pages, I fixed already some of them, I think so, can you check that and be a little more specific in what part we still need to fix issues, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.54.84 (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well chances are that I simply dated them. However I have removed some that seemed fixed and done a general tidy up on the article. Rich Farmbrough, 09:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC).

Knn template[edit]

Hi, could you please bring back this template? I am working on some Konkani language articles. I hope to use it there in the case of external links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Knn_icon&action=edit&redlink=1

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, however you might consider using. "(Konkani)" it is much clearer meaning in the edit page than "{{knn}}" and only two more characters. Rich Farmbrough, 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC).

Thank you! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 05:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your AWB edits still mess up the Persondata[edit]

You don't do may AWB edits anymore, but some of them still have problems with Persondata, like here adding date of birth twice, with different values and capitalization: here you did the same for date of birth and date of death, but this one you corrected afterwards (but with a non-consensus change of uppercase to lowercase); here you changed the capitalization of one template and placed it out of order. Oh, and [240] is the kind of edit you (or anyone else for that matter) aren't supposed to make with AWB or other tools. It's not a lot that goes wrong, but with the limited number of AWB edits you make, it's still a significant percentage that has the same old problems. Fram (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

about emergency shut down button[edit]

message me the code for me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightnurse denise (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

Hank Bergman page[edit]

This is in regards to the Hank Bergman page, Combat Infantry Badge verification needed. Here's the link [241] to the verification, sorry I didn't know how to add it to the page. legwarmers1980 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legwarmers1980 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is in there, would be better if it was also as a citation "Headquarter Thirtieth Infantry APO # 3, Special Orders Number 147. etc..." including details of where the records are housed if possible. The other source (http://www.ww2awards.com/person/43078) cites Wikipedia, without saying which parts, so that's not an RS. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

Arrino, Western Australia[edit]

I'm not too sure of the weasel word reference to the above article. Aboriginal , Aboriginal Australians and Indigenous Australians are all pretty much the same. The reason I linked Aboriginal back to Indigenous Australians is that this article includes all Australians considered as Indigenous (not just mainland). If an article existed for the specific peoples of the area I would have linked back to that (but there wasn't one). Could you please clarify as to why these are considered as weasel words? Or if you think linking back to Indigenous Australian is more appropriate then why not make the change? Hughesdarren (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's "which" not "weasel" and I changed the link to Australian Aboriginal languages. Note also that I did not add the tag, merely dated it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Frederick Scott[edit]

The article Frederick Scott has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Essentially a disambiguation page for two people who don't have an article on them. Not to denigrate their accomplishments in life, but neither of them seem particularly notable. There was a "first black person" at every university, and designing a chair that itself has no article does not seem particularly WP:N\notable either.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Category replacements[edit]

Please don't replace an incorrect category with a correct one, if that correct one is already in the article. Removing the incorrect one is sufficient in that case. You duplicated a category on the 10th[242], and added it a third time on the 11th[243]. I have removed two of the three cases. Fram (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well AWB would deal with most of these pathological cases, unfortunately my AWbing has been severely hampered since September of last year. Rich Farmbrough, 10:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC).

Thanks...[edit]

...for your contribution to the article New Guinea Singing Dog. Chrisrus (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though it's very simple, really, at the same time it's also true that the situation there is very complicated. I really appreciate your help. Chrisrus (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Semir Osmanagić[edit]

What is wrong with the list of faculty members of the faculty and why is that dubious?

Take care, Borchica (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semir_Osmanagi%C4%87&action=historysubmit&diff=423729057&oldid=423726080 Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC).

Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Page[edit]

Hi Rich,

I really appreciate the feedback you left me on my page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii%27s_Opportunity_Probation_with_Enforcement_%28HOPE%29. I'm new to writing Wikipedia pages and can use all the help I can get! I've made some updates to the page. If you have time would you mind looking at them and making additional suggestions if needed?

Thank you, Maria (mcod8582) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcod8582 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough, 11:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Klein zach 02:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Errors[edit]

Unsubstituted dates[244], and adding the same parameter twice, with different capitalization and different value, in Persondata[245]. Both have happened a lot before this, but it doesn't seem to be solved. Fram (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot edit of 2011 BRICS summit[edit]

Your edit raises a couple/few questions. First, the commentator is the footnoted writer. "A commentator from the Financial Times ..."? "Jamil Anderlini of the Financial Times ..."? Any preference? I thought the comments, not the commentator, were the interesting part; given he's basically substantive, but to me at least otherwise unknown. I'd stick with my original.

Second, what's "Build p609," if I may ask, in your explanatory notes to the edit? I've found hints re "609" in a templates' search but nothing that seemed fruitful.

Thanks. Swliv (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's the version of SmackBot - p for perl and 609 is the build number (see previous section) - something I was asked to add, to make bug tracking easier. Note that the bot only dated the "who" tag, however I would agree that a phrase like "A Financial Times journalist" is better than "A commentator". Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

SmithStreet article[edit]

Hi, changes have since been made to the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmithStreetSolutions to amend its 'orphaned' status. Also, reference links have been added to ascertain notability. Would it be possible to have these tags removed? Please let me know any other ways we can improve the article. Thanks 116.228.36.134 (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 09:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Sue Welfare article[edit]

Hi

I've just put in a couple of new categories for the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Welfare

I just want to check that I'm getting this right. There was an uncategorized link there but a couple of categories had already been added. I've added a couple more categories that seemed logical. I then deleted the uncategorized link, should I have done this? I'm only asking because the link was left in before when the first categories were added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotch5 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right. The "Catneeded" template was added by AnonMoos here - since birth, death and living categories are not enough. From this point of view "Uncategorized" is inaccurately named. But certainly is the tag should go once there are other categories. Rich Farmbrough, 09:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

Hong Kong films[edit]

Hi. I just noticed you did this this. Can you fix em or move the templates so the edits don't produce red links? I've redirected templates so they are no longer red.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Rich Farmbrough, 09:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 18 April 2011[edit]

News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news

In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news

WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Greater good[edit]

It is rare I see a greater good argument on ANI. Thanks for brightening my day! PS. You may want to copy your bolded oppose to the beginning of your post, it is easy to miss. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:WPDinotopia listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:WPDinotopia. Since you had some involvement with the Template:WPDinotopia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nicole Krauss[edit]

Hi Rich I've been working on improving the Wikipedia entry on Nicole Krauss - providing links and references and deleting at least one peacock statement. Is it OK for untagging now please? Thanks Headhitter (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice - I've now untagged it Headhitter (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Gwyneth Herbert[edit]

I've also been working on the Gwyneth Herbert article and have sourced and added references for all the biographical material. Could this be untagged now too please? Thanks. Headhitter (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I now see that another user has already untagged it. Headhitter (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"things that stayed too long"[edit]

got another - [246] the article remained like that for almost 6 months until this edit [247] i was watching it since a few days after it was like that (dont even remember how i got there) and wanted to see how long it would take to be fixed. was hoping a lot longer tbh...--Heardused99 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean [248] ? Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Or this [249] ? Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:List of empty monthly maintenance categories[edit]

Wikipedia:List of empty monthly maintenance categories, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of empty monthly maintenance categories and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:List of empty monthly maintenance categories during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Cat redirect blanking[edit]

Hi Rich. I see that you've recently blanked a number of category redirects. In fact, I noticed because these are now appearing in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. Had this been a single instance, I would have just reverted it as a likely mistake but clearly you're trying to do something and I don't want to get in the way. When you get the chance, let me know what your secret plan is. :-) Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 23:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sven-Göran Eriksson[edit]

Hello Rich. SmackBot has put "Please consider expanding the lead" on Sven-Göran Eriksson but I think it's fine as it is. If I undo the SmackBot change will SmackBot come back and change it again? (Chorleypie (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

SmackBot did not add the tag, it merely dated it. Thumperward (talk · contribs) added the tag (see the diff), so you would probably be best served to take the issue up with him/her. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes! Thanks Jenks, will do(Chorleypie (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Thanks Jenks! Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Petroncelli[edit]

Hi Rich ;). Could you please take a look here. Some user (i dont say "SP" just because i'm not a check user here and i am a kind guy ;) is still deleting templates. Thanks. ;) --Lucas (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

ps: that musician has just two cd in his curricululm (and he's just a player, not the composer), so maybe there are some reason for a deletion proposal. Bye! --Lucas (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

– or so it seemed Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Template:Wiktionary[edit]

Hi, there is currently a bug with the 'Look up x on Wiktionary, the free dictionary,' template. It currently sends you to the upppercase version of the page, which often does not exist and means needless clicking to the lowercase version if the auto-redirect fails to kick in for some reason (see e.g. here). I would try to correct it but I'm afraid I can't make head nor tail of it, but saw that you edited the template in the past, and so was hoping you could help. Thanks. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This only happens on the secure server, and only when the page name is given explicitly. So most pages can be easily fixed - by removing parameter 1 if it is the same as the page name and (but lowercased), but I'm still looking at the template code. Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC).

OK fixed, I beleive. Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC).

All black magic to me, but thanks for fixing it! :D It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about a template[edit]

I was hoping you might be able to teach me about a template. I have noticed recently that template:Geographic location is sporadically placed on articles in different locations. I would like to make the location somewhat static, on the bottom, directly above the Defaultsort like the persondata. The template doesn't seem to specify a standard location though. Do you know where this thing should live on the article? It only seems to be used on about 10, 000 articles. --Kumioko (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is generally is placed at the bottom, I would have thought above navboxes though, since it is arguably part of the article - much like a succession box (do they go before navboxen?). Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC).

Updating infoboxes of Russian localities[edit]

Bug report: here, AWB added redundant line
|pop_2002census_ref=<ref name="PopCensus"/> <br>that broke references (because the reference was already present as |pop_2002census_ref=<ref name="PopCensus">{{ru-pop-ref|2002Census}}</ref>. I've removed that line. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Category:Articles sourced by IMDB[edit]

Category:Articles sourced by IMDB was renamed to Category:Articles sourced by IMDb per a CfD discussion, so Femto Bot should not still be creating monthly cleanup categories under that incorrect name. Thanks! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Same with Category:Articles sourced only by IMDB. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

[X] copied from User talk:Femto Bot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

List for new months updated, the April re-creation must have happened because the cat wasn't empty. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: Approved.. *

Edits by:

Headbomb at 09:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 09:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 08:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Headbomb at 09:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Headbomb at 09:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 10:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

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

Edits by:

Kingpin13 at 02:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
Headbomb at 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Headbomb at 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Headbomb at 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 06:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Question on In Our Time template[edit]

Posted at Template talk:In Our Time, just in case you're not watching it. I'd like to make sure all the math related programs have links from the corresponding WP article, most have been done already but I added two that weren't and am still checking the rest.--RDBury (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request SmackBot 37[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

BAGBot: Your bot request SmackBot 41[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

BAGBot: Your bot request Mirror Bot[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

BAGBot: Your bot request Femto Bot 4[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

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

Edits by:

MBisanz at 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Pointless whitespace editing[edit]

Please stop this. You have changed nothing. Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I know. Rich Farmbrough, 15:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

Keith Critchlow article[edit]

Hi Rich. For the life of me, I don't understand why the Keith Critchlow article has been nominated by User:NuclearWarfare for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Critchlow. I have no idea what the OTRS system is. Any ideas? Help? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich, for your reply. I still don't understand why it's being nominated for deletion. I can't see the back office ticket. And Dr. Critchlow is a well known figure and merits an article. The article's been there for a long time and it's not an orphan. Are you saying that Dr. Critchlow himself can request his article be removed? Is this the case? Why? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If Dr. Critchlow himself has requested his article be removed, has anyone verified it's really him requesting it? By phone or postal mail? And why should it be removed because it's requested as such? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. But there's nothing in the article which isn't factual, publicly known, etc. What possible reason is there for it to be deleted? The birth date? I just don't get it. It's still flagged as an AfD regardless of any "mootness" of the point. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4[edit]

Template: {{BAG assistance needed}}. *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 08:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 08:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 08:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 08:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Femto Bot 4[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot 4 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Speedy Renaming[edit]

Hi Rich. I note that on May 14 you removed for renaming four items from the Cfd Speedy List. However, you only appear to have dealt with three on the item. The item still to be dealt with is the renaming of Category:Israeli sports awards to Category:Israeli sports trophies and awards. Davshul (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Palmadium Cinema[edit]

Is this your picture? And if so, when was it taken? According to Cinema Treasures the Palmadium, Palmers Green, closed in 1961 and has been demolished; the one in the picture doesn't have the colors given in the sources on the Palmers Green cinema, but they could have been painted over. I ask because I am trying to assemble the info on John Stanley Coombe Beard, and the Palmers Green cinema was one of his. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's one of my brother's photographs. You can ask him on User talk:DavidFarmbrough. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC).

Incidentally the central part is an Assembly Hall of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the picture, that and the architecture suggest that stories of demolition may be "greatly exaggerated". Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC).

There appears to be a little confusion, this building is in the North Circular, according to the map (174 Bowes road). 292 Green Lanes, Palmers Green is a William Hill bookmakers - not a Tesco. Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC).

OK, thanks. It did look a bit wrong for the date, but Google didn't turn up clear evidence of a second establishment called the Palmadium. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My parents or grandparents would have been able say for certain. I can ask my aunt. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC).

The photograph is of the Enfield Ritz, (later 1970-1974 the ABC). Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Ah, many thanks. So I haven't lost my touch - that looked like full-on 1930s to me and is indeed 1933. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Alcoholism article question[edit]

I'm working on updating the open tasks list on the systemic bias project. You mentioned that Alcoholism had a North American bias. Has that long since been edited (mostly) away or am I missing the obvious? Thanks Cloveapple (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes mostly! It should still touch on the alcohol problems in post-communist Russia, and the treatment, self-help and diagnosis have a Western bent, but nothing like what it was 5 years ago. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for checking. Mind if I quote you on that? (Otherwise, if you'd prefer to update that comment yourself, it's in the review subsection of the developing world section.) Cloveapple (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free. Rich Farmbrough, 13:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Art museum[edit]

Beware of vandalism [250]. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm interesting. I was just thinking about automatic taxonomic and syntactic vandalism detection. Rich Farmbrough, 12:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC).

Would be great if you could design something, and I would be glad to help here - vandalism diverts me from writing and maintenance. User:ClueBot NG has been enormously helpful recently, but it is not always on-line and has its limitations. Materialscientist (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is quite hard, although some ontology checking could be done fairly easily on the category level I doubt that that is a significant percentage of vandalism. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Pimp tenure[edit]

How many more line refs do you want??? I think the article is very well referenced. Please consider removing your improve tag. I genuinely can't see what more can be written on this topic, there is simply a paucity of sources.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC))

The article looks well sourced to me, and I have removed the tag. Note that SmackBot merely dated the "verify/refimprove" tag, and note also that you are quite at liberty to remove such tags if you believe the issue has been addressed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

"This looks like an intended part of "how to create/use an infobox tempalte" therefore no speedy for now"[edit]

Huh? It's clearly a new editor that doesn't understand that he should experiment in the sandbox or his own userspace. The name is "Sample infobox" after all. How can you claim it is anything other than a test edit misplaced out of ignorance? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If it was "test infobox" I would agree. To me "sample" is a completely different thing. And yes you are probably right, but regardless it is not a good start for someone to have their work destroyed in a few minutes, even if they are just establishing principles. Also developing templates in user-space, while not incredibly hard, is not as obvious as in template space (and with complex templates with sub-pages does become tricky). Give the guy a day or so, it's not like this is visible to users. Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot and line breaks in infoboxes[edit]

Hi, SmackBot removes the line break between {{Infobox film and | name = as seen here, here, and here. I guess this isn't intentional? Not all infoboxes are affected and it's not really a big deal, but it look better with every parameter on a new line. Cheers, jonkerz ♠ 23:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I do so agree! thanks for letting me know will investigate tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 23:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC).

Fixed, build p612. Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC).

Thanks! jonkerz ♠ 23:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up[edit]

FYI, the Santorum article we discussed at the meet-up is currently a topic of discussion on wikien-l, if you're interested. [251] and following. Cheers, --JN 466 15:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Abigail Tartellin[edit]

Rich,

Nominated the above article for deletion. Think I got the 'reason' wrong though and prod was removed six minutes later by the venerable Hullaballoo WOlfowitz. Can you advise how to nom this properly? --82.41.20.82 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

looks like it was deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 08:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

DYK for Henry Walton Ellis[edit]

On 23 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Walton Ellis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Henry Walton Ellis was appointed an ensign in the 89th Regiment of Foot at birth, and when the regiment disbanded the baby was put on half-pay? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Habiger Hi Rich: The subject of this article asked me if I could rewrite it to address the three flags added by SmackBot in at 18:04 16 April 2011, namely Advert, Notability, Cat improve. I've rewritten the article, condensing duplication and rewriting sections in a more neutral point of view. I've added categories and edited citation links to go to more direct sources (many were to a Youtube archive channel his company set up). It's a stronger article now. I've listed these changes in the Talk page. Is it enough to be deflagged or is there more I should do and/or someplace else to ask? TIA Martin kelley (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot: ibid tagging[edit]

Why did Smackbot tagged here the article with ibid? Every reference is clearly cited (really rarely case)... mabdul 08:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

[252]. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ups, thanks, didn't read the full edit summary of smackbot. I will contact the other editor... Thanks mabdul 10:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot dates[edit]

Hi, Rich! Could you please check the rules behind this edit? The census citation template does not have a parameter for the date, nor does it need one. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 27, 2011; 13:33 (UTC)

Known bug. Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Lists of characters[edit]

Rich - I will spare you the usual template nonsense, but this is to notify you that the article Lists of characters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neither a proper disambiguation page nor a list of lists; the articles linked below are neither topics known as "list of characters" nor actual lists of characters.

I know you know what you can do about this. Also note that the page is an orphan, so its deletion will not break any links. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks, taken care of. Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC).
S

dated[edit]

[253] Non-substituted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I said AWB does that. Rich Farmbrough, 11:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

You are right. I haven't seen the unclosed ref tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

pl:Buscemi[edit]

Done. Nedops —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.67.154 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot Tag Duplication[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alchemy&action=history

Deal with it please. I see that others have complained before. 50.80.139.102 (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It was not duplicating anything, it was dating the tags and changing them to be upper case. Why did you insist on removing the dates? Monty ₈₄₅ 05:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing Monty. Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

WikiProject Cambridge[edit]

This project may be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglia. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 19:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011[edit]

News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news

In the news: Low-hanging fruit and sustainability; Qwiki on iPad; sceptic critic; brief news

WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

DL&W gauges[edit]

You added the 6 foot gauge category to the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad. I take it this was an early gauge. ----DanTD (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually replaced "Category:Six foot gauge railways with 6ft gauge railways." the original cat was added by User:NE2 here, in 2008. Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 9 May 2011[edit]

News and notes: More research on newbie editors; Baidu plagiarism; bin Laden coverage; brief news

In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news

WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games

Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back

Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?

Technology report: MediaWiki 1.16.5, 1.17b1; 1.18 branched; UploadWizard the default; Berlin Hackathon; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Wonder Girls" using wikipedia purely for promotional purposes[edit]

There is a Korean band which is managed by The Jonas Group and a Korean company called JYPE - every time there is TRUE and DOCUMENTED information placed on their wiki page it is deleted.

I have to point out that wikipedia does not make it easy for abuses like this to be addressed. I do not even know whether I am contacting the right person by posting this.

It is not right for an entertainment company to use wikipedia like this.

For instance, they keep posting that this group was the first group to break into the Billboard Hot 100 - this is a bit of a lie. They broke into the Hot 100 because they deliberately sold an entire CD for a "bargain-basement" price of $1. A manager for the group admitted this to a Korean newspaper. Please check below:

http://www.koreaherald.com/entertainment/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20100511000742

http://www.koreaherald.com/entertainment/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20100512000682

So to say that they were the first band to break into the hot 100 is NOT a neutral statement. It is a PROMOTIONAL statement. To neutralize this statement it was posted that the cd was sold for $1 - and the reputable Korean newspaper that printed this was cited. This was removed.

There are a NUMBER of factual statement that have been removed.

Please also note that those two articles referenced above were HUGE news stories in Korea. The korea Herald later stated this was the 6th biggest internet story of the ENTIRE year. In that story it was also revealed that young performers were ebing illegally housed in New York and that they were brought into the country in a manner their own president is quoated as saying was "illegal". The performers were also not being covered by health insurance. This is OBJECTIVE and DOCUMENTED. It has to be on this wiki page.

If the TRUTH is withheld from this wiki page then EVERYTHING should be withheld because without the TRUTH you just ahve a PROMO TOOL.

In order to promote this band, HISTORY - important CULTURAL HISTORY is being left off that site.

This is wrong!

I have donated to wikipedia in past fundraising campaigns and I love this site. This site should NOT be used as a PROMO tool.

All the factual and DOCUMENTED information about this group and the way it has been managed has to be reported objectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazerrazor (talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Rich, please see this:[edit]

It might seem silly, but take a look. Thanks! User talk:Catfish Jim/Petition --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dusty Hill article, etc.[edit]

Hi Rich. Might you look into User:Willygoat1 ( Special:Contributions/Willygoat1 ) who keeps messing up at least one article ( Dusty Hill ) despite my roll backs to a stable version. Thanks and bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Investigated. Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Reversal of admin action at Joél Celéstin Filsaime[edit]

Can you please explain why you reversed my admin action at Joél Celéstin Filsaime, and restored the page without prior consultation with me — and with zero edit summary in your log? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That did not answer my question.
Why did you perform an admin action — which reverted another admin action — with zero edit summary?
Why did you feel it was so urgent, that the time could not be afforded to consult with me first, drop me a note, and see what I thought about it?

-- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)

It explained your first question. The rest is just detail.
The subsequent edit summary is quite sufficient. I'm sure seeing the reason was not so urgent that you couldn't wait a couple of minutes.
Speedies are not a big deal.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Update: The page is just re-created vandalism by a sock of an indef blocked user. Please see prior incarnations that were also deleted as vandalism, at Joél Filsaime (entrepreneur) and at J-Pimp (Entrepreneur). Also Prince Joél I (Joél Filsaime). And Prince Joél I, J Pimp.
I request that you undo your admin action reversal, and delete the page.

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am of course aware that you have blocked the user in question, and the edit histories of the other accounte are before me. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Are you refusing my request to undo your admin action and delete the page? -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem very excitable about this. I haven't had a chance to look any further, since you arfe delugeiing me with nessages. Rich Farmbrough, 02:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

You seem quite quick to reverse other admins' actions with zero consultation, and yet at the same time much more unwilling to undo your inappropriate behavior. Why is that? -- Cirt (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to discuss my editing habits or look at the issue? I have looked at nothing but this since your first message, but you have not given me a minute to actually perform any analysis. Inundateing my talk page with repeated questions does not help you getwhatyou want, it prevents it. Rich Farmbrough, 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

You could start stating that in the future you will consult admins before immediately reversing their admin actions. That would be appropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a speedy, not the Big Red Button. That sort of admin stuff is no big deal. I'm sorry if you feel offended by having a speedy reverted, but given the claims the article was not speediable under the grounds given. I was examining the artcile looking to make th ereferences visible to check them when it was speedied. Undeleting it while I did that and assessed the situation was perfectly reasonable. Onc again offending your amour propre was no the intention, I would never be offended if someone reverted a speedy, so naturally I assume others wouldn't be. There is another reaons for htis, however, speedies are gerneally soemthing an admin will go through fairly fast, unlike aan AfD where some tie may be spent on an item, so there is no reason to think a speedying admin has any special knowledge, concern or insight into the article he speedies. Rich Farmbrough, 02:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for the response. I hope that in the future you think carefully about consulting with other admins, before reversing their admin actions. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Underground stock[edit]

Hi Rich
See Template talk:Infobox Underground stock#Additional parameters. Peter Horn User talk 22:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

Hey Rich, just noticed this edit you made. Was this template replacement a built-in one? If so, it needs to be fixed, seeing as Template:Hospital disambguation does not exist (should be Template:Hospital disambiguation). If not, then please just remove it from your personal rules. These kinds of errors are one of the main reasons why people are upset about large scale cosmetic changes - there is no improvement, but can be errors, leading to either no change or a net loss in quality, obviously it's simply not worth the risk. Also, either way, please stop making edits like these (you shouldn't be making purely cosmetic changes even if they are built into AWB), please take more care when using AWB in the future to examine the edit thoroughly before you hit save. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Another cosmetic change here, from about an hour ago. Are you looking at these edits before making them? What possessed you to save these, rather than simply hitting skip (which should take exactly the same amount of effort for you and wouldn't be wasting everybody's time)? Also, I noticed you keep adding {{Reflist}} templates to pages, even when those pages have no references to be listed (sometimes you're adding them at the same time as adding an unreferenced template). I'm not quite sure if this is standard practice, but I didn't think it was? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that someone would add references. At this point the references section would come into its own. On many occasions a reference is added but no {Reflist} leaving a red error splattered across the page. As for the white space only edit - I'm sorry if that wasted your time, I have marked the article "unref". And typos, yes they happen, yes they can be fixed, as you may remember I was working on the many thousands that are in the WP 0.8 release when there was all that trouble last September. A task that should have taken no more than a few weeks and is still incomplete largely because people would rather do anything than actually work on the project proper. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC).

You're not addressing the issue Rich.

Was this template replacement a built-in one? No
Are you looking at these edits before making them? Yes
What possessed you to save these, rather than simply hitting skip? Stuff happens.
Is it standard practice to add a reflist template when there are no references (just in case someone adds some)? There's about 170,000 where this is the case.

Could you answer the questions I asked rather than going off on a tangent. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. Is "stuff" going to continue happening? I'm assuming you've removed this replacement at least. How difficult would it be to go through your settings file and remove these template replacements from your rules? You say you looked at the edits, but are you actually registering what you are doing to the page? I'm really struggling to understand what your difficultly is here, is the problem that you don't actually realise what you're doing with the edit? Or is it that you do see and don't care? Or something else entirely? As for the reflist, I would really appreciate if you got a consensus at the village pump before adding these empty sections, regardless of the possible future use. I personally believe they should only be added as needed, rather than pre-emptively, you obviously disagree, and so I think it would be a good idea to ask the wider community. Regards, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes stuff will continue to happen, because I am not perfect, sometimes the wrong button gets clicked. I have not removed the typo'd replacement because it is not in any lists I have. On reflist, I have done my research on that, 170,000 articles with a reflist template waiting to be used seems pretty convincing evidence that it is reasonably standard practice, and there is no good reason to oppose it on grounds of custom, which was your original question on that matter. And the reason for discussing some of the other stuff I do with AWB is to remind you, as I have stated before, that when I look at an AWB diff. I am looking primarily for things that are wrong and should not be saved, this way of working is not ideally suited to avoiding the odd white-space only save, however I do believe that there are very very few of them, and it is far more important to be checking the text. Moreover I have commenced an analysis of my last 5000 edits, looking for similar edits, and there are no others that are not part of a series of edits in the first few hundred, and only a few white space edits at all. Of course if I am doing spelling checking and mistakenly "correct" parlement to parliament I jump into Firefox and revert self. I have seriously considered doing that if I save something like A.D._Police:_Dead_End_City - because, yes it's nuts, it creates more edits, load etc. negligible though they may be, but really I know someone is going to come along and say "OOh you saved a white-space edit from AWB!" But I don't think that's a good idea. The problem reported in your first sentence, was less of an issue. That was a real problem, it is fully resolved and the first sentence made an nice bug report, fixed, everything is improved, we would both go away happy. Instead of going into the hyperbolic, and hypothetical, simply stick to the facts. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

Merge discussion for Civil Parish of Winterbourne [edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Civil Parish of Winterbourne , 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. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:DGC albums[edit]

Category:DGC albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB edit bug[edit]

FYI. You ate the infobox name :) I've fixed it, but you probably need to watch for this in future edits. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 23, 2011; 15:52 (UTC)

I remember asking you once to not replace "Infobox Russian city" and "Infobox Russian town" with "Infobox Russian inhabited locality" (the former two currently redirect to the latter). Could it be related to that?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 23, 2011; 16:39 (UTC)

Fixed, for that particular exercise, need to watch for this problem though. Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Assume typing in wrong location?[edit]

Here - [254] - tho "Exhas a long wayxolon" as my username was amusing. Exxolon (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes my PC now deposits characters where the caret was rather than where it is unless I give it plenty of time to adjust to the new location. I would blame Vista, but I think people already know. A reinstall will occur some time in the next N months. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

No worries, hope you get it sorted :) Exxolon (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC).

I am sorry[edit]

I am sorry, Rich Farmbrough, I wish to admit I overreacted a bit in my comments to you at this page earlier. I have two family members who recently both had serious surgery, and I should have taken more time to compose my thoughts in a more kind and polite manner towards you. I apologize about that.

I hope you are doing well, -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, we all have bad days. Rich Farmbrough, 12:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Rich, thank you so much for the understanding. I appreciate that. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

references-[edit]

references- Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/darius-kadivar/diplomatic-history-shah-iran-grants-assylum-kurdish-prince-dawood-beg-jaff-1958

www.jaff.biz

www.jaff.us

secondary sources-

ecil J. Edmonds, Kurds, Turks and Arabs: Politics, Travel and Research in North-Eastern Iraq, 1919-1925, London, 1957. Ely Banister Soane, To Mesopotamia and Kurdistan in Disguise, London 2007 Hitchens, Keith. "Goran, Abdulla", In Encyclopedia of World Literature in the 20th Century. Vol. 2. 3rd ed., completely rev. and enl. Edited by Steven R. Serafin and others, pp. 276-277. Farmington Hills, MI: St. James Press, 1999 Joyce Blau, “Written Kurdish Literature,” in Philip G. Kreyenbroek and Ulrich Marzolph, eds., History of Persian Literature, Companion Volume II: Persian Popular Literature; Literatures in Modern Iranian Languages other than Persian, 2010, pp. 103-28. P. Lory, "Shahrazuri" in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd edition, ed. by H.A.R. Gibbs, B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat, C. Bosworth et al., 11 vols. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960-2002), vol. 9, p. 219 Minorsky, The Tribes of Western Iran, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, pp.73-80, 1945. (p.78) Sadiq Safizade, Pishgouyiha-ye lI-Begi Jaff ('The Prophecies of Il-Begi Jaff'), Teheran 1988 W. Jwaideh, The Kurdish national movement: its origins and development, 419 pp., Syracuse University Press, 2006 Khanai Qobadi, Širin o Ḵosrow, ed. M. M. ʿEbd el Kerim, as Šīrīn ū Ḵusrew, akari ṝ‘irî nawdarî kurd Xanay Qubadi, Baghdad, 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shajaf (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Unfortunately I have no idea which article you are talking about. Rich Farmbrough, 20:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

why citation is needed?[edit]

In Sarah Geronimo article: "She is the first Filipino artist to receive a platinum award for a DVD copy of her concert The Other Side in 2005 and is currently the only artist who has a platinum record for 4 DVDs of her concert. Her fourth one was awarded with triple platinum status in December of 2010." - the claim is a fact. It is a fact in the music industry here in the Philippines that she is the only Filipino artist to have a platinum selling dvd's of her concert. You can visit all the major record stores here and ask for it. It was stated before in a Television show ASAP where she performs weekly for this fact. [X] copied from User talk:SmackBot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 16:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless many inflated claims about record sales are made. Platinum discs are generally documented by the awarding body. For this reason they are generally referenced. Note, by the way, that I did not add the citation needed tag. Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 7 March 2011[edit]

News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news

In the news: "Truth in Numbers?" interview; 94% women; Google algorithm update; brief news

Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community

WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Category redirects[edit]

Hi, Rich. I see that recently you have started moving pages out of redirected categories into the target categories. I can't tell whether you are doing this manually, but if you are, you might want to know that RussBot does it automatically on a daily basis. No need to waste your time if you don't want to. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Tags you placed on Figaro Systems[edit]

Regarding two tags you placed on Figaro Systems: I disagree that the article reads like advertising and that notability is questionable. The company and its technology have been written about (see the article's refs) in many newspapers and other independent publications. Assistive technology is of interest and importance to various communities and, in fact, is used around the world. I think you overdid on this one. Leoniana (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you want [255] someone else. But I agree, broadly with removing the advert tag. notability is always a difficult question, and one I prefer not to make judgements on. Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 16 May 2011[edit]

News and notes: Geographical distribution of Wikipedia edits; Sue Gardner interviewed; brief news

In the news: Education minister's speech copied from Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales interviewed; brief news

WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute

Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ceramic matrix composite[edit]

Thanks for adding the clarify tag in the corrosion chapter. I have added a comment and references and removed your tag. Okay? Since the article is quite technical, I would very much like, if you could find more points, where the article requires better phrasing for better understanding. More references are no problem; I have a list of many books and publications dealing with CMCs. --Leumar01 (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks MaterialScientist is your editor of choice here - there's a clue in the name... Looks like a great article. Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC).

Regarding Notability Tag You Placed on Figaro Systems[edit]

Hello, Rich: You (as Smackbot) tagged Figaro Systems as lacking notability. The tag asks for good refs. The refs (more than 20) include articles about the company and its technology from the New Mexico Business Weekly; the Albuquerque Journal; Auditoria; the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Full-Text and Image Database; Los Alamos Laboratory; Daily News Bulletin; New York Magazine; Public Radio News and Information in Houston, Texas, KUHF 88.7 FM Houston Public Radio; Entertainment Engineering; Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colorado); the Santa Fe Opera, Santa Fe, NM; Appliance Magazine; Los Alamos National Laboratory News, Los Alamos National Security, LLC, US Department of Energy's NNSA -- and more. I think that's a reasonable number of good references and more than adequate evidence for notability. Leoniana (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please click on this link (provided in my previous answer) to see who actually added the tag. Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC).

Smack Me template[edit]

I ran across the {{Smack me}} template added to a controversial BLP article [256] and it struck me as something that could be taken in totally the wrong way. While the template doesn't visibly change the page, it really seems problematic to add something labeled {{Smack me}} to the article of a person currently being vilified in press. Maybe it will never be an issue, as it has been around awhile, but I thought I should at least raise it as a potential one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty845 (talk • contribs)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 07:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

AWB bug fix: Less problems with pages partially blanked[edit]

rev 7708 More exceptions to Unicodify character list. Less problems with pages partially blanked. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

D. B. Cooper[edit]

The edit you made with AWB messed up the internal readability of the citations and references in D. B. Cooper, so I have reverted it. Please turn off AWB's removal of appropriate whitespace and indentation which helps understand nesting of templates. Besides, adding {{Persondata}} to this article is pointless since even his name is unknown. —EncMstr (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. 23:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)~

Again, it looks like you made the very same edits which break internal readability. Your note on my talk page indicates that the lack of {{persondata}} is causing this? How does that work? Surely you have manual control over what page it selects.... —EncMstr (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, however often very large sets of articles are targeted. One setting widely used allows AWB to skip articles when only minor changes are being made. AWB will assume (possibly correctly) that a persondata is required, therefore will not automatically skip the page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Stronghold Kingdoms[edit]

Inline citation added as you requested to the Stronghold Kingdoms article. It shows as a quote from Simon Bradbury in the reference section. "Citation needed" now removed. Link to article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stronghold_Kingdoms VoltairSHK (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. I expect SmackBot dated the tag, rather than adding it though.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 23 May 2011[edit]

News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news

In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news

WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

I'm having a bit of a problem with the coding on this page. If you look near the image in the infobox, it has full of coding around it. Could you take a look and see what's wrong? ---StevenBjerke 13:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You only need the image name, the template takes care of the rest. I tidied a couple of other minor problems including removing three sentences of text lifted straight from the board's website. Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot's edits not marked as bot or minor?[edit]

I noticed that the bot's edit to my templates on Viacom (simple dating) were not marked as minor. Since it's an AWB bot, I can understand this, but it's something you may want to look into :p demize (t · c) 01:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

They are marked as bot, you can see this from "recent changes" if you wish. Marking them as minor is probably a good idea. I do find that flag a problem sometimes as people can be unhappy however you set it. Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

Oh and AWB makes setting the "minor" flag easy, however SB doesn't use it much these days. Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

Ah, took me watchlisting the page to see it. The history should say that it's a bot edit, that confused me :p demize (t · c) 02:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the binary 'minor' flag is a pain. Either setting will produce complaints. Sometimes inverting the setting in response to a complaint will produce a complaint in the opposite direction within a matter of hours. There should be a third option: 'No claim regarding minor or otherwise'. Lightmouse (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT question[edit]

Hi Rich. I know you do a lot of work in this area, so I thought you might know the answer to this one. Is there any reason for a standalone {{DEFAULTSORT:}} in an article? Example: 52. Or is this just cruft that I can delete if I'm in there cleaning up other stuff? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well 53 has the deafaultsort 53. I can see that a defaultsort of 0052 or b00052 or something might make sense, if they were widely categorised. As it is I changed it to match 53. this make it clear that no other "clever" defaultsort is needed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC).

Works for me. Thanks Rich. 28bytes (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I found about 200 of these, all fixed, except one. Rich Farmbrough, 08:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot - ignoring editing tag[edit]

Hi, can Smackbot be instructed to respect the 'editing' tag, please? It is more than a little annoying to complete a long edit only to get an edit conflict due to the bot dating a tag. TerriersFan (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. People usually use the target template - {{In use}} which it knows about. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC).

thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Done build 613p. Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 13 June 2011[edit]

News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news

In the news: Revere, Palin and Colbert generate activity; British Wikipedia "cleanser"; brief news

WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft

Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page

Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case

Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why the nbsp in table?[edit]

fig. 1 - some breaking spaces yesterday. — *fig. 1* - some breaking spaces yesterday.

Rich, I reverted twice your insertion on nonbreaking spaces into table items in Overtone. That's not a fix to anything, as far as I can tell, just a complication. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's standard to have nbsp between numbers and units. It prevents the sort of thing in fig. 1. Rich Farmbrough, 08:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

OK. I thought it had no effect on table items, but I see you've gotten them to break. Dicklyon (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad categorical alphabetisation[edit]

Would you mind, if I remove a DEFAULTSORT you've put into Template:Cleanup/doc? C.f. Template talk:Cleanup/doc! Best, JoergenB (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead! Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

I commented on the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 2 May 2011[edit]

News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news

In the news: Wikipedia users name "superinjunction celebrities"; brief news

WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case

Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Can you add the templates in Category:Côte d'Ivoire subdivision templates to the relative articles using Category:Populated places in Côte d'Ivoire by region as a guidelines as I believe many communes are yet to be added to the templates. The vast majority are completely unused yet contain the articles. Can you use AWB to apply the relative template to the communes by department? Otherwise I fear they'll be deleted as unused.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Doing. Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Review on CANCER is Curable NOW[edit]

Thank you for your feedback on CANCER is Curable NOW. I am working on pulling together a list of resources and will edit it soon. Once I have I will let you know so that you can re-review it.

Thank you! Iconcalif (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC) User:Iconcalif

Nero (band)[edit]

Hey just a heads up that your edit here broke the infobox image on the page. I've fixed it already but it might be something to look out for. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I let that one slip by. I shall be more careful with infoboxen. Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

Suggestion[edit]

Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Wikipedia. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste {{User:Invest in knowledge/mdx}} to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't. Rich Farmbrough, 01:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Swell Records albums[edit]

Category:Swell Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Vöro or Võro?[edit]

While investigating Wikipedia:Help desk#Expand Language template seems not to work I came by an apparent error and hopefully fixed it in [257] without screwing something up. I saw meta:List of Wikipedias#Languages without ISO 639 language code or duplicated or using incorrect code but I'm not used to ISO 639 and exotic languages. Can you check that I did right and what else should be done in that case? I guess Category:Pages translated from Vöro Wikipedia should be renamed to Category:Pages translated from Võro Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The templates were derived form a an ISO 639 list, if the name has changed, was wrong on the list, or we prefer to use a slightly different one, that's fine, (as long as we aren't making any false representations in content). The system is designed to be as simple as possible (although primarily targeted at {{Lang}}) , so the changes you suggest will probably cover everything with a rare language like that. There might be Category:Articles containing Vöro language text. Rich Farmbrough, 09:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

{{ISO 639 name vro}} exists and should therefore be used in preference. Rich Farmbrough, 09:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for looking into this. [258] creates redlinks. I think it should be reverted because the Wikipedia language code is still fiu-vro: and not vro: per number 11 at meta:List of Wikipedias#Languages without ISO 639 language code or duplicated or using incorrect code. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are correct. Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

Chaitin's constant[edit]

You made the same edit on Chaitin's constant twice. Could you please explain, on the article's talk page, exactly what the purpose of the edit is? Please note that sortkeys are not case sensitive as of Mediawiki 1.17 [259], and that "minor edit" is not a descriptive edit summary in any sense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Finally bug 164 is fixed? And of course the binomial sorts are partially broken (and irreparable) now. would be useful if really important stuff like this was promulgated a little better. Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC).

Apparently voters don't get emailed when the bug is updated.Rich Farmbrough, 09:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Laman Jegan Joof Article[edit]

Hello,

I notice that you have placed a {{Clean up}} and {{wikify}} on the Laman Jegan Joof article. Would you please check if it is now OK to remove those remarks?

Thanks

Tamsier (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rich_Fambrough,

I've noticed that you have improved the Laman Jegan Joof article. Thank you very much. The remarks are still there though. Can I remove them and if not what exactly can I do?

Thanks

Tamsier (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the main problem is that the language needs changing, both grammatical problems concerning tenses and so forth, but also to give it an encyclopaedic tone. Possibly you could ask for help at WP:Guild of copy editors. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Hi Rich Farmbrough,

Thanks for your advise. I will work on the article.

Thanks

Tamsier (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages[edit]

I missed a change that you'd made to this page a couple months back and disagree with it. After being reverted for trying to adjust the section on WP:BLANKING to what I thought reflected consensus, I've started a discussion on the talk page. Your input would be appreciated.--Onorem ♠Dil 14:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles[edit]

In light of your participation in the discussion(s) regarding the treatment of disambiguation pages on the "Lists of mathematics articles" pages, please indicate your preference in the straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean I get two votes? Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC).

No, but please note that someone has added another option which I think merits a response. bd2412 T 23:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Talkback2

Femto Bot question[edit]

Hello Rich. I see that your bot currently updates the recent changes list for WikiProject:United States. Could you all set it up to do so for Wikipedia:WikiProject West Virginia and Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR? The recent changes page for WikiProject: West Virginia has not been created, and I would assume to put the articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject West Virginia/Recent changes. On the other hand, the best place to add the articles for WikiProject: NASCAR could be Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Related Pages, unless it has to end with Recent changes. Our projects would really appreciate it. Thanks and happy editing. --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, can do. Rich Farmbrough, 09:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

Done, just needs to update. Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

Thank you. --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011[edit]

News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

In the news: Wikipedia could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief

WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot de-substing[edit]

Hey Rich. I just noticed this edit where SmackBot de-substs the {{Contradict}} template. But I've seen other templates go...errr..."un-de-substed"...for quite some time without intervention. I don't see this in SmackBot's task list. Can you please provide some more info about what gets de-substed and when, just so I'm not needlessly making changes? Thanks! – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ye, it de-substs where the appropriate delimiters are there. The page visit is triggered by the "Articles with incorrectly substed template" category. The entire mechanism was created and built (by me) for when people wrongly subst: a clean-up template, which then cannot be dated properly. This was even more of a problem in days of yore as the categories were explicitly present in would get end-sorted. Sometimes people subst: a template and then break it in complex ways that means it can't be easily de-substed. Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

Note that there are two methods of invoking the category, the old hackish one and one built into Ambox/Fix, by MSG. Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

The hackish one being the the null namespace check like we~~'re~~ were using in {{Contradict}}? From what you said above, though, it sounds like SmackBot should be taking care of most of them, so I'll still keep an eye on the category, but only fix those that don't disappear. Do you want me to let you know when SmackBot fails to handle something, or is people doing odd things a fairly common occurrence (in this context, that is <g>)? Also, what would be a reasonable time-frame to say "clearly SmackBot hasn't handled this one"? – RobinHood70 ^talk 01:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the new test is still a little hackish but its invisible, which is important. Do let me know, it's worth seeing if they are possible to code around. Probably a couple of hours, I reviewed the last 5k edits and it looks like about 1 per day is the run rate. Rich Farmbrough, 11:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Okay, that works for me. There was one template I spotted a couple of weeks ago that lacked an end comment (which I fixed, of course), so that explains the issues with that one. I'll let you know if I spot anything else. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fire In The Attic[edit]

I translated the German wikipedia and added some sourches but please correct my grammar mistakes. Greetings Goroth (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Made a few tweaks. Rich Farmbrough, 13:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Multiple issues[edit]

No, not having multiples issues. Quite simply I noticed SmackBot setting a date for a Multiple Issues template. Has Multiple Issues does not use a date parameter, I presume that is not needed. Not a problem either (and good work, smacking those damn dates around!) - Nabla (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it actually uses a date for the "expert" setting. To keep life simple it just dates them all (did I say I'm a fan of simple?). Rich Farmbrough, 11:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

OK. - Nabla (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

info[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Petrocelli Dear Administrator,

I inform you that I've removed the two web links from the page and I have communicated to have the permission from the author. Would you please tell me how to remove the speedy deletion remove?

Many thanks in advance.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritbritishmusic (talk • contribs) 23:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DNB AA[edit]

Template:DNB AA 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) 08:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you don't like these notifications, but since it's a mass TfD nomination, I thought it would be civil to notify you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

DNB templates[edit]

Hello, Rich. I have posted a question on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_20#Template:DNB_AA that I think is primarily directed to you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_9#Template:DNB_AA. Rich Farmbrough, 20:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Parameters in Template:Fix[edit]

In relation to this edit/ Doesn't that remove the general category from all articles with a monthly subcategory? I noticed, after testing, that it does leave the general category when no date is specified. In general, the cat parameter may always be removed when a cat-date parameter is present then? Debresser (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say so. Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Between us, with a proper doses of humour, and profound agreement, wouldn't you say this is a way of removing all-inclusive categories? Debresser (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction, the "reasons" for keeping them are obsolete anyway, and have been for some time. Rich Farmbrough, 15:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

I still agree with you on that one. Please let me know if there is anything I can do in connection with that issue. Debresser (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011[edit]

News and notes: Editor retention; Malayalam loves Wikimedia; Wikimedia reports; brief news

In the news: What if experts just want to get their links into Wikipedia?; brief news

Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed

WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan

Features and admins: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?

Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

Could you please move Frank Garcia (magic) to its redirect Frank Garcia (magician). Only an admin can do it. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Debresser (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Question/request[edit]

Would it be reasonable to change {{Use dmy dates}} to use {{DMCA}} instead of {{DMCAT}}. None of the other 5 "Use" templates (see Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month) do so. In addition, this template is transcluded on only 14 talkpages, out of almost 112,000 (!) transclusions. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Transclusions eliminated. Debresser (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Debresser (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Disambiguation needed[edit]

Smackbot isn't adding dates to {{Disambiguation needed}} from what I can tell, due to the number of pages which are in Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation but which are not in the dated subcategories. Could you add that tag to the list of ones which the bot dates? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Just saw the section above about this same thing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Argentine images[edit]

Hi Rich. Can you see the Argentina list of images at the bottom of my talk page. They are all PD-AR-Photo public domain in Argentina yet are marked with rationales and non free licenses. Can you use some coding to fix them to the PD-Ar-Photo and remove the rationales?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks mate!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Does {{Ambox | cat = Whatever | date = {{{date|}}} }} do the same as {{DMCA | Whatever | from | {{{date|}}} }}? Or are there differences, however slight? Debresser (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say for certain that there are no slight differences, Template:Ambox/category is the key, htough it is of course wrapped in {{Cat handler}}, and it looks pretty much the same functionality to me. Rich Farmbrough, 09:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

I also looked at both of them, and found it a little too complicated to be sure. I thought you might have researched this functionality before and have a ready answer. In any case, if I'd move category handling from the Ambox to DMCA, even if only to add clarity and conformity with other templates, nobody should get offended, should they? Debresser (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

MSGJ's reason for implementing this is to migrate in the other direction. I have discussed the matter with him a little while ago, and the change I think might be useful. It needs some time to pull it all together, and last time I tried to pilot it I got some rather crazy push-back. If I find time I'll look for the discussion. Right now I have other stuff I need to attend to. Rich Farmbrough, 09:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

What is this[edit]

Are [260] and [261] some type of test edits? Debresser (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

One is un-necessary, the other is a new feature that populates Category:Templates including undated clean-up tags, typically someone will add a "Citation needed" to a navbox, throwing maybe hundreds of articles into an undated cleanup category, until I manually date the tag (having manually searched an item for the transclusion). This makes those templates easier to find. Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

Example (with wrong edit summary) here. Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

I see. So you intend to revert that edit, no? Debresser (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, FWIW. Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

Substitution checking[edit]

In connection with this subject I have two remarks:

Please see Template_talk:Disambiguation_needed#Prevent_substitution and my question there.
Why is a redlinked Category:Templates needing substitution checking added to Template:Definition, Template:Ambiguous and other templates (even Template:Whatever/Doc's, which seems entirely redundant), even though they do have substitution checking? Debresser (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Commented there.
Same question asked of MSGJ on his talk page.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Discussion continued there.
This edit seems to have resolved the problem. Or perhaps the problem was resolved regardless by something else altogether. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does that category come from at all?? Debresser (talk)

From this edit. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes its part of fix... Rich Farmbrough, 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

here so it's a trackking cat as I thought, just not for what I thought it was.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

That's the same edit I found. It's a little above my pay-grade. Do you think it is a good edit?
Why don't all maintenance templates using {{Fix}} have the |substcheck=<includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly> line? Debresser (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as it goes, to create a temp tracking category.
I suspect that's what the the category is there to track. And both are obsoleted if we install Amalthea's fix. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Template:Citation needed‎[edit]

I left out the name parameter deliberately since that's only a meta parameter, i.e. only useful if the template is used as a meta template, and never useful when you substitute it. You disagree? Amalthea 19:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that it is of limited value. However since I added the parameter I thought it good housekeeping to keep the unsubst up to date. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

OK. Won't hurt, and it may be less confusing if all used parameters are accounted for. Amalthea 19:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Of possible DNB interest[edit]

This project page is collecting ideas for getting on top of DNB cleanup. Your draft pages are not showing up in those searches, in that you don't use {{DNB}} attribution (yet). Charles Matthews (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Defaultsort[edit]

Are you aware that defaultsorts with each word starting with an uppercase are no longer needed? Since a few months, the sorting is case-insensitive, which means that e.g. this defaultsort doesn't change the sorting in Category:Construction records any more, and an article like List of highest church naves, without a defaultsort, will automatically be sorted before the one you changed. The defaultsorts you add aren't incorrect, they are just completely unnecessary.

If this is standard AWB behaviour and not something specific to your version of it, I'll take it up on the AWB talk page. Fram (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What he said. I just finally twigged to the change myself, despite spending days fix bad sort keys. Besides finally doing the right thing and being case-insensitive, sorting is also space-insensitive: "Du Barry", "DuBarry" and "du Barry" are now all sorting the same (or at least adjacent with a hidden secondary sort, I haven't checked yet). I'd argue that space compression is right also (it's what the online E. Britannica has long done). So tools that used to "fix" some things due to broken collation can do less now. Accented characters are still sorting wrongly though, after Z. Studerby (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's (as I understand it) a project specific fix, worth taking to VP:T. Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, has been discussed on this page. Strangely although voting for the collation bug on Bugzilla I did not get an email when it was resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month[edit]

I made some changes to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. One of them is to change the order of the categories, to bring them closer to a-z. Btw, you are invited to check that, especially since I am not aware of the precise order of characters in ASCI.

Another is to add a temporary remark in from of categories that are not present in Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates, with the purpose of adding them there. I hope that won't disturb your bot. In any case, I see it has already done its job for this month, and I don't plan to leave them that long.

I have a question (added there in remark tags). Why do we have both Category:Articles needing cleanup and category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup? Debresser (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit added the "Wikipedia" which was in vogue for a while as pseudo name-space. Because of the other changes I didn't pick up that this was a divergence from other templates and let it go as not too important, but the talk page discussion shows that nobody was particularly for the extra word, nor did they pick up that this was a category fork. For that reason I will revert that part of the change. Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

All subcategories of Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup are empty and can (and should) be deleted. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add Category:Wikipedia categories needing cleanup, Category:Wikipedia templates needing cleanup, and Category:Wikipedia pages needing cleanup, the three non-mainspace categories {{Cleanup}} sorts into, to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month as well? Debresser (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

they have.
Probably. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC).
23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Consider it done. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

interview request[edit]

Hello, My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru at the domain gmail.com --MulgaEscu (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wonder what happened to this? Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot[edit]

Hi Rich, Smackbot had an issue with Family tree of William Jardine (1784-1843) on the grounds of notability. This guy was pretty important in the history of trade with China and the article (read tree) links to five other by definition notable articles (six if you include William Jardine himself) and now has a couple of references. I have therefore removed Smackbot's tag but I'm interested as to how he/she/it picked it up :). Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 11:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot just dates the tags. Of course the Jardine family are famous in terms of Far Eastern trade, so I don't think there's a basic includion problem here. Nonetheless this might be better in William Jardine (1784–1843), or moved to Jardine family rather than being an article apparently about the tree. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks Rich, the problem with moving the article is that it overlaps both the Jardine and Keswick families so it doesn't really belong 100% in either. Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 20:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have transcluded it to Keswick family. Fine tuning would be in order. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Dn[edit]

Hi. I just saw template {{Dn}}. It is fully protected, so I can't do anything with it. I'd suggest to 1. add detection for substitution 2. add dated subcategories 3. spell out "Disambiguation needed" 4. add this template to Smackbot.

I improved the documentation somewhat. If you add dated subcategories or move the template to its full name, the documentation and category page should be updated with that also (I could do that later). Debresser (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen to (1). The template used to be called {{ambiguous link}}. I wonder if it should be moved back there? Regarding (2), doesn't {{fix}} add the dated categories? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the move was in response to a request, see [262]. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a way to make a substituted template substitute to its transcluded version. Would that be desirable here? Amalthea 09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please explain more ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, so that any subst checks or subst cleanup logic becomes obsolete. E.g.:

{{Dn/sandbox}} → ^{[disambiguation needed]}
{{subst:Dn/sandbox}} → ^{[disambiguation needed]}
{{subst:Dn/sandbox|Foo}} → Foo ^{[disambiguation needed]}
{{subst:Dn/sandbox|date=June 2011}} → ^{[disambiguation needed]}

(look at source). Amalthea 09:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's genius! This way be the way forward. The only downside is the huge complication it adds to the template code. Let's see what the others think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made it a bit easier to use, by outsourcing the work to a helper template. Shouldn't be any harder on the servers. All parameter names and values still have to be listed at the top, but it's only one line with some boilerplate. Oh, and I think the explicitly numbered parameters will have to remain, I don't think parameter values with equal signs would work otherwise (like in {{dn|1= Foo=Bar}})
Amalthea 12:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - I spent hours on the testwiki trying to make that happen a couple of years back. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Can only be done (cleanly) since safesubst: was added. :) Amalthea 11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And I added the |cat-date= parameter to the sandbox as well. Debresser (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I started creating the matching template and category structure. In the middle of this I noticed a bot had also taking up this process. Hope I didn't mess it up. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be fine. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

1. Dealt with above

2. You did it

3. Yes, spelling the name out in full would be preferable. Rich Farmbrough, 11:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

4. Done.

Rich Farmbrough, 11:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

I updated Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month and Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates as well.

Will any of the three admins who posted here (MSGJ, Rich, Amalthea) make the move? Debresser (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As to the move request. The rationale was ridiculous! Move the template, because the documentation uses another name. The obvious solution would have been to change the documentation! Debresser (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"Yes I lol-ed." MSGJ has moved the template. Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Ambiguous[edit]

Did you have this template? Template:Ambiguous I shaped it up considerably, but it might need some more editing. Smackbot doesn't know it, that I am sure of. At least it doesn't involve a new category structure. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Added, will take a while to percolate through. Rich Farmbrough, 11:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

Category[edit]

I noticed Template:Ref quantity on the list of your contributions (just checking whether you are active, because I'm waiting for your answer on issue #2 above), and after looking in Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates I found just the right category: Category:Wikipedia references cleanup.

This is one of the purposes of that list of categories with templates. Debresser (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

3. This template is in use one precisely 2 pages. Admitted it is a relatively new template. Still, may I conclude that you hold that all maintenance templates should use monthly subcategories? Or did you just not pay attention to the low number of transclusions, and if you'd know you'd not have created monthly subcategories? This is a general question I wanted to ask you. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, even low usage ones benefit, because we can say "OMG it's been like that since 2006!" As I said on the talk page, it is not clear to me how this template should be used, I.E. what is to stop someone rea-adding it in good faith after an article has had all its refs checked. By all means merge the cats. Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

I do not understand what you mean by "By all means merge the cats"? To use Category:Wikipedia references cleanup? Done. Debresser (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes., Rich Farmbrough, 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

Done (Did you see issue #4 above?) Debresser (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

Hey Rich,

I'm new here, but just wanted to check in to see why you removed my edits to "Spectrum Equity Investors". The information was all accurate and off their website. Do I need to foot it to articles from NYT and stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asparagus10 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

Template:Cv-unsure[edit]

parameters and urls

Please undo this edit. I did the same thing yesterday. But there are good reasons not to do it, see this edit summary. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

See this example for what happens when people add the date after the url. And you just can't expect people to put the date all of a sudden up front. It's going to be an ugly mess. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually added a warning there on {{Copypaste}}'s documentation, see [263]

Don't see the problem since "date" is an named parameter. Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Let me show you: {{Cv-unsure|User:Debresser|url=http://www.wouldyoubelievethis.fyi/|date=July 2011}} results in:

Huh? {{Copypaste|User:Debresser|url=http://www.wouldyoubelievethis.fyi/|date=July 2011}} results in:

Then what went wrong on that documentation edit? Debresser (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok,you're right. That must have been a problem caused by {{Tlx}}, perhaps. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a talk page template: I still think the sig should be after the template though. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Actually I think no signature is needed at all. Like all tags, whether on articles or talkpages, that are not followed by signatures. Don't you agree? Debresser (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't Bronchopleural fistula in Category:Suspected copyright infringements without a source from November 2010? Something with {{DMCFAC}} should be {{DMC}}? Debresser (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, nee to include talk pages basically. Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Done Changed to {{DMC}} with a specific note in the edit summary that you might have a better template. And I restored all categories and templates related to the dated maintenance category associated with {{Cv-unsure}}. Do you have time to have a look at issues 5 and 6 above? Debresser (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I see from this edit that you understood the necessity of shaping up all the transclusions of {{Cv-unsure}}. Btw, I changed the dated, based on the edit history of the article, but I understand that I won't be able to do that for all articles. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there should be a "Copy vio query resolved" template. Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

The template says clearly that after the issue is resolved, it can be removed. So a "resolved" template wouldn't be necessary. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There then may be no record of what has happened, and a new CV-unsure might get raised. Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

You have now created sections on the talkpages (not all, btw). Discussion of proof will be kept there. In addition, the templates could be Tlx'ed, like {{Editprotected}} templates e.g. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't SmackBot done anything with the dated Cv-unsure instances on Talk:Bronchopleural fistula, Talk:Foresight (management), and Talk:James Brown (sportscaster)? Debresser (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OK the plan was to get as many using "url=" as possible and at the same time create sections and pull the sig out. This was all done from my account. SB will in due course start dating new CV-unsure templates, but will need a little tweaking since it is usually restrained from operating outside article space. Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

These three instances were skipped because they already use |url= then? Debresser (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask where consensus for any of these edits was obtained? I'm active in copyright work and have not seen these changes discussed anywhere and only noticed them when lots of your edits appeared on my watchlist. I'm particularly unhappy about the addition of a header above the tag. I think these should be treated the same way as a wikiproject tag and kept at the top of the talk page so as they're obvious, don't get archived etc. I also query the usefulness of a date tag - these tags are placed when someone has investigated and can't find a source but still has reasons for suspecting a copyvio. Dated tags suggest that it's something that needs dealing with and that there is a "backlog" That doesn't apply in this case. Dpmuk (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Also please see discussion at Template talk:cv-unsure. Dpmuk (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have sympathy with the idea of keeping a record of copyvio investigations, as is indicated inthe aboce discussion, however the scope of this tag does not allow that. The actual use of the tag is quite varied, from simply a lone tag, which really says nothing (not why a cpoyvio was suspected, nor of what, let alone what investigation has been done) to a fairly common usage where the url is of the suspected source, to part of a section that outlines comprehensively one some or all of the reason for the suspicion, the suspected source, the investigation carried out. For that reason I would suggest a more comprehensive workflow is required than simply tagging a talk page with "Fred thinks that this version of the article may have been a copyvio". Rich Farmbrough, 11:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

Your unhappiness was no reason to revert all of the changes to the template, including category handling and parameters. Your problem seems to be with SmackBots edits rather than with the changes to the template. In this regard I actually agree with you, that the tag should remain on top of the article page, and no section should be created. But let's keep the discussion on the template talkpage, shall we? Debresser (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Template talk:cv-unsure. Dpmuk (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

I may need your help with the Best bet diet article. There really are few decent references about that subject (unless you include some silly websites about that diet) but I have added one reference, and if that is not enough, could you have the article deleted. The only reason I created this article was because it kept being merged with articles that had nothing to do with the best bet diet.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrx1 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD deletion of Ni Hao, Kai-Lan[edit]

I have nominated the article Ni Hao, Kai-Lan for deletion and placed ((db-spam)) on the page due to it's description being written like an avertisement. If you like to decide whenever to delete or not, please contest it on my talk page. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Cold Spring Granite[edit]

Hi Rich. A while back a flag was placed on the Cold Spring Granite page and I have made several attempts to get a response from "request for feedback" on getting the flag removed. My apologies for not sending this to you first, but I am wondering if you could review the page and assist me in getting the flag removed. I have cleaned up the page and removed non-notable objects and sections to make it adhere to the guidelines better. If you could help, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance Wendyfables (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pixel Chix[edit]

The article Pixel Chix has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources attached, none found in a search.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:At A Loss Recordings albums[edit]

Category:At A Loss Recordings albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Snow Carpenter article[edit]

Rich, could you take a look at this? User talk:Stephen C Carpenter ... regarding the Edmund Snow Carpenter article. Thanks and bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich. I agree with what you said. The tricky thing is that several published sources are wrong according to Stephen C. Carpenter. We cite the sources but qualify them in a footnote. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.5 (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot's name[edit]

Hi Rich, I see above that the dramaz continue, for which I feel kinda bad. I'm certainly not attempting to add to that, at all. I do hope that we (meaning yourself and I, and anyone else who wishes to say anything) can have a cordial and constructive discussion about SmackBot's name.

I know that this has been mentioned before in the past, but the talk page archives are so noisy with people's use of SmackBot's name that it's difficult to find old discussions on the issue. I was just wondering if you'd be receptive to the idea of changing the bot's name, at all? The bot's name isn't actually that big of a deal, but you've gotta know that "SmackBot" has a mildly negative connotation to it. I suspect that may be part of the "you're going off on your 'I know better then any of you' editing sprees again, aren't you?" perception issues that have been coming up recently. Something less snarky might help with the PR issues, is all. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I like it, and so does my ~~redacted on grounds of privacy~~. It's kinda funny - "naughty person, don't leave off those dates again". Stay cool. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That, right there, is actually exactly why I'm concerned with it. The problem is that I don't think: "naughty person, don't leave off those dates again" is what we should be telling people. I don't see any issue with people who are manually editing pages (or even those who are semi-auto editing) leaving off optional parameters. There's absolutely no requirement for, and there should never be a requirement for, editors to use date parameters, or any other maintenance parameter, with templates. SmackBot is welcome to add them, of course, for all of our convenience. We certainly shouldn't be implying that editors are doing something wrong that SmackBot has to chase them around in order to "correct".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to me that you can't change the actual account name, but I don't see that as being very relevant. I didn't think that you could anyway, actually. My recommendation here is to simply start using a different name.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes choice of name was perhaps a little hasty - as indicated on SmackBot's user page. It should definitely have had a space in it! I don't think I've had more than one or two complaints about the name, it might be worth considering using a different account, though, as there is not even meant to be a hint of reproach. A I remarked on someone else's talk page, the workload caused by the chance of making an error manually adding the dates exceeds the cost of processing a few more pages in my perception. Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC).

Hi Rich, may I add my voice to those calling for a rename of SmackBot?" Strategy:Proposal:Be_More_Inclusive_and_Friendly_to_Newbies#Proposal singles out SmackBot as a bot name that is offputting to Newbies. I'm sure that isn't your intent but a gentler name would take little effort, and even if only one in a hundred newbies thought smackbot had smacked them. For such a busy bot that would be an awful lot of newbies. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to beat on this to death or anything, but I think that "SmackBot" really does come across as "bitey". I just hope that this is constructive criticism, rather then "hey, let's beat up on Rich this way" kind of thing.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I love how the name implies "a smack on the bottom". If it's ever renamed it should be to SpankBot! –anemone projectors– 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

FYi: according to this week's [Technology Report]: "The limit on the number of contributions a user can have and can still be renamed has been increased to 50,000 (server admin log)."
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Two orders of magnitude too small :) Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:-ismist Recordings albums[edit]

Category:-ismist Recordings albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot Page: Michael J Wade[edit]

I just activated a wikipedia account and did my first wikipage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J_Wade

Two questions

1. Any suggestions on how to change the middle initial "J" to a "J." with a period? Please do so if you can.

2. How to disambiguate with "Michael Wade"?

Wingroras (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Wingroras

Done, you can follow my edits on those pages . Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

Apparent violation of restrictions, and a number of errors in AWB edits[edit]

Rich Farmbrough, edits like these[264][265][266][267][268] seem to be in violation of your editing restriction: "indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page".

Any reason why in this edit you once change "pmc" to "PMC", and once "PMC" to "pmc"? Either leaving it alone, or changing them consistenly, would have been better.

In this edit, you change "TV" to "television" inside the title field of a cite template, thereby "correcting" the official title of that page. Text inside such template should usually be left alone.

In this edit, you "correct" the word "eles" to "eels", even though "eles" is correct in this case. Similarly, in this edit you change "Mehet-weret" (another name of Hathor) to "Mehet-weren't", which is funny but wrong.

Please try to get your error rate on AWb edits down. Fram (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

Edit-warring with yourself? Reverting to wrong versions against Anomiebot?[edit]

Why did you need 12 edits (5 by Pixie, 7 by yourself) to correct a simple error, and to change month-day format to day-month format (which, as far as I know, is normally not allowed: first editor preference is kept, not changed, without a very good reason)? You reverted your bot twice at the end to achieve absolutely nothing[269]? Very strange...

You were also reverting corrections made by other bots, like here. You eventually left both articles in a correct state, so no problem there, but it still is strange to see you make such edits. Fram (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot not only has to make the right correction, but it has to make it for the right reason. In the case of "Jule" (also "Juny") it is not clear by using a simple metric whether this should be "June" or "July" (although in some senses it really doesn't matter if a trivial number of articles get put in the wrong month, they are still in the workflow) - [270] a bot makes an assumption - in this case incorrect, that "June" is meant. Actually we have additional information available to us to make the decision, and that is that it is currently July, which means that July is almost certainly meant (it is). Rich Farmbrough, 09:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

But in the cases I linked, you didn't revert an incorrect bot edit, you reverted a correct bot edit. That the bot sometimes makes mistakes, bad assumptions, is not a reason to revert the correct edits it makes... Fram (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Rich Farmbrough, 09:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Megaphone Duck also making inconsequential edits in violation of your editing restriction[edit]

Yesterday evening, you made two edits with your sock account User:Megaphone Duck: [271][272]. Both seem to be violations of your editing restriction, making no change to the page output (the first inserts a space before the ref tag, which is wrong: the second puts a space brfore blogs, which is also wrong). Please check your AWB edits, don't make inconsequential edits with it, and don't introduce too many errors (the occasional one is unavoidable). Fram (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an error rate of 2 in 2800 null edits. Not sure the cause. (Edit stalking much?) Rich Farmbrough, 09:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Um, no. That's an error rate of two out of two. Edit stalking? You are known to have a higher error rate than many other frequent AWB users{{cn}], you have editing restrictions, but you gradually seem to be slipping into old habits again. I don't interfere with any content edits you make, I sometimes keep an eye on the quality of your semi-automated edits. I left you alone for three months or so, to see whether my checks had anything to do with the quality of your AWB edits. It doesn't look as if the lack of checks has improved your error rate. As for the cause of these errors; perhaps you don't check your AWB edits carefully enough? Fram (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you make mistakes in your manual edits probably at a higher rate than my AWB edits. Perhaps you could review the two and come up with some definitive figures? Rich Farmbrough, 10:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Apples and oranges. I usually don't make existing articles worse with my edits, contrary to the two edits by Megaphone Duck we are discussing here. Fram (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do. You have made hundreds of thousands of articles worse that I am aware of, and I don't even follow what you do. Rich Farmbrough, 10:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

I'll continue pointing out your errors, and ignore the strange replies you are making, as they are hardly productive. If you really believe that I have such an enormous negative impact on the project, you'ld better start a process to get me banned. Fram (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Still dating multiple issues, which doesn't have or need a date tag

Your bot is still dating the "multiple issues" tag, which doesn't have or need a date tag (it is specifically listed as a deprecated parameter on the template doc page):[273][274][275][276][277][278][279]. Fram (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. Rich Farmbrough, 09:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Exactly. Rich Farmbrough, 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

date with small letters should also not be in the tag if the expert-subject is not present. We don't date tag Multiple issues. date is used additionally when expert-subject contains something else than date. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Multiple_issues/doc#Common_mistakes needs update probably to include this case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 10:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, 10:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot edit warring with itself.

The bot is edit-warring with itself at Suffix and will be reported at the edit-warring incident page if immediate action is not taken. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Or... we could just fix the problem that was causing the bot to act up. The actual page was Suffix (name). Rich, please review the history and make sure that something like that can't happen again (check that "Date" is a parameter name and not value before changing it's casing (e.g. you could check that it is preceded by a pipe, etc.)) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, the old AWB version had code for "date=date=" - I will continue re-inventing the wheel. :) Thanks for your help.Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the note. Rich Farmbrough, 12:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot

Hi Rich. Little blip in the above. Check out the edit she made here. Not sure why she is whipping out the | , but sure it's just a quick tweak :-) Best wishes Haruth (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Take note that TagUpdater function of AWB does it right so this is not an AWB bug. AWB now fixes "Date" and "dates" to "date". Check Wikipedia:GENFIXES#Dated_tags_.28TagUpdater.29 for more. By giving feedback to AWB on common issues will reduce bugs caused probably by complicated regexes which keep reappearing in bot's code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

AWB is not being used here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

Fixed, thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

You're very welcome, Rich. Keep up the good work! Best wishes Haruth (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't be possible that you check TagUpdater's code and create a similar one in Perl? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably is similar. I don't like the way AWB is coded, it is extremely clever, extremely object orientated, and extremely (to me) obscure. I didn't want to touch (or even have a copy of) the source, partly because I knew I would get accused of doing certain things (which I was), partly because I didn't want to learn another computer language (which partly happened), and partly because I didn't want to get into another time sink, and only did so because I was forced by an admin to patch the source or be blocked. Nor is a minor bug that affected one edit really a reason for a total re-write of my code (that I didn't want to write in the first place, but again was forced to by circumstances you are familiar with), nor do I have time for that. Rich Farmbrough, 08:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Hatnote mistake

Hi! A little mistake here. {{For}} does not recognise "other uses" in latter fields. Regards. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 09:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

These hatnotes sure are complex. Using "about" for that situation. Rich Farmbrough, 09:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps first test one page to get it right, and only then continue? this, this and this are now three dreadful hatnotes. Fram (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote error

Another hatnote error: a piped link should not be split into two links. Fram (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected this one, and also this one, which needed an "about" hatnote instead. Fram (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Both fixed, although "about" is not essential. Rich Farmbrough, 13:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Templates

Just to let you know, I've had to revert your recent edit to {{cat improve}}. I'm not sure if you just made a coding error, but your edit had the accidental effect of completely depopulating the entire Category:Articles needing additional categories backlog. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason being that {{Ambox}} has no |cat-date= parameter, just a |cat= parameter, which is automatically dated when a |date= parameter is specified, see {{Ambox/category}}. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Abberation, thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 12:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38

Template: Request Expired.. *

Edits by:

Kingpin13 at 03:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Kingpin13 at 03:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 04:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kingpin13 at 03:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Kingpin13 at 03:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 44

Template: Speedily Approved.. *

Edits by:

MBisanz at 14:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 14:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 21:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 14:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 14:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hubertine Heijermans

What about the cat 'Portrait painter'? I found it in the wikipedia list. Second question:where can I find a cat called 'Lithographer'. Thanks for your answer. Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Scout Releases albums

Category:Scout Releases albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot bug

I fixed it here and here. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Bot bug

I fixed it here and here. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Merge discussion for Legal status of Texas and Republic of Texas (group)

An article that you have been involved in editing, "Legal status of Texas" and another, "Republic of Texas (group) has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Arsenal (Central Park)

This edit is causing an Expression Error. Station1 (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Helpful Pixie Bot task 44 violates your editing restriction

Your "speedily approved" task 44 is making a lot of inconsequential, unnecessary edits, changing "reflist" to "Reflist" and nothing else.[280][281][282][283][284][285][286][287][288][289] ... These are all violations of your editing restriction. Fram (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

<Meh> Someone decided to do the same task manually. Rich Farmbrough, 10:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

Russian templates

I just happened to walk into a problem with three related templates in the Russian Wikipedia when I looked up an article about a certain actress. The problem expressed itself in various redlinked categories. Posted an editprotected request, and now wait for my fixes to be implemented. It's fun to use my experience here on other wiki's as well. Debresser (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Just wish I had more time to work on the wider project. Rich Farmbrough, 10:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot

Your bot continues to date the "multiple issues" tag, something which you describe as "extra unecessary edits to claanup tags, which are suppsoed to be ephemeral." Please stop making these changes. An edit like this is a pure waste of resources.

This is actually the type of edit for which this bot was invented, and for which used it was approved. Dating tags is a useful thing. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dating tags which support a date is useful. Dating tags that don't support it is not useful. Dating tags that only support it in very limited circumstances, without checking for these circumstances, is a nuisance. Every tag inside the "multiple issues" template has its own date, no additional date is needed for the whole template. Fram (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the part I didn't understand also. I am sure Rich will explain that, though. Or discontinue it, if it shouldn't be done. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This has always happened. It is for simplicity. Yes it may be slightly sub-optimal, depending on your perspective. If there was an actual problem, then I would code around it. It so happens that I was intending to introduce a subject parameter, which would have changed things. However an editor decided that me editing protected templates constituted "admin abuse" and reverted all the changes, and reported me to ANI. Now they catch moan about one of the (incredibly minor) problems that they stopped being fixed I am not really well disposed to do what they want. Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

What simplicity? It is not needed, not wanted, not helpful, not informative. Some tags need dates, some don't. This one already has pultiple dates, one per issue. A general one for this is a completely waste of time, and is only confusing (what is that date doing there?). The ones that don't should be excluded from your bot. Simple. Apart from that, if you don't understand why changing fully protected templates at your whim isn't admin abuse, then it is time that you put down the admin tools. You can always propose any changes at the talk page of the template, just like any other user would do. Fram (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot also dated "Puffery", which doesn't take a date[290]. Fram (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Many maintenance categories which at first did not take a date parameter have later started to take a date parameter. The fact that they don't take a date parameter yet, might be because 1. no one has considered to add it, even though that should have been done long ago 2. the tag is not being used much, which does not mean it will not be used later, as it becomes more well-known and editors start to pay more attention to the specific problem the tag comes to note. Therefore, it is very wise to date all maintenance categories, to avoid cases where all articles presently in a category have to be dated arbitrarily with the month and year the category started to be a dated category, while in reality they were tagged over the course of some years (resulting in abnormally large first dated categories). Debresser (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, dating tags that aren't used a lot creates lots of near-empty subcategories, instead of one medium-sized one. Bots (and bot owners) shouldn't be adding unused tags because perhaps, someday, they may get used. Stick to what is needed and currently useful. Fram (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. If the template doesn't have the infrastructure the categories are not created.

Not really. These categories won't be created simply by dating the tag. Debresser (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Helpful" Pixie Bot is now edit-warring to include this useless date tag, without making any other change[291]. Bots shouldn't be edit warring in general, and certainly not for when their edit isn't helpful in any way at all. Please correct this as soon as possible. Fram (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot is not edit-warring as a conscious act. It is in this like all robots, who automatically repeat their actions, until they attain the result for which they have been programmed. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not as a conscious act, obviously, but how does that matter? Many bots here are programmed to skip a certain action if it gets reverted once or twice. This one obviously is not. Fram (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that was possible, but that sounds like a good idea. Debresser (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting the bot once, may just be ignorance, doing it again ... <sigh> Rich Farmbrough, 18:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Doing it again was a check to see if the bot was coded to stop editing a page multiple times in a row or not. Obviously, it isn't. A bot that edit wars to include things that shouldn't be there in the first place is a thing that the bot operator needs to correct, either by excluding that task from the bot code, or by including code that stops the bot from edit warring. Fram (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

So you deliberately edit warred? Why am I not surprised. Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

RU positions

Sorry about jumping the gun and doing some of the substitutions. I figured since it was a job for AWB I may as well download it and help out. I see now that you were getting permission for a bot to do it. There are still quite a few to do and I can stop to let your bot finish it or if you no longer wish to I will continue using AWB. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

"Update after"

Please test new bot functionality in your userspace or a testwiki, not in the mainspace. Five big large errors in a row, and more in the past few days... Fram (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please participate

Please participate and leave your opinion in a thread I opened on MSGJ's talkpage. User_talk:MSGJ#Ambox_and_categories Debresser (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And while we're at it, please tell me your opinion about a small issue on Template_talk:Cv-unsure#Who. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hubertine Heijermans

Hello,

This time I concentrated to improve and hope that I succeeded today. I now understand the references, hope I did not overdo. I still want to shorten the article. Will try again. I also need to create an info box but don't know how. With kind regards, Kalaharih --Kalaharih (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 44

Template: . *

Edits by:

Rich Farmbrough at 14:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 14:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 14:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 14:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 14:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hubertine Heijermans

Today I sent on request an article more elaborated than before about Museum van Bommel van Dam, as i was advised to make links possible, which the adjonction of:presence of early etchings of HH in that museum procures. Now that link just realized and sent, a totally new person tags the article with red flags of violation. I do not even have time to get the necessary material to write another article about things like professors or teachers mentioned in the article. Maybe you know for me what I should do. In the meantime thank you for the demand of more categories. I saw I could do that right. With regards Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can help much more with this, you really need references, ideally to printed works or scholarly papers, or museum catalogues. Presumably there is a WikiProject Art that may be able to help. Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

HiT Software

Hi, you had noted on this page (January 2010) that it had incorrect inline citations. I have since edited the page. Can you please recheck and remove the note if everything is now in order? Thanks! Eglobe55 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work. SmackBot just dates those templates, though, and if the problem has been fixed anyone may remove them (I have done it in this case). Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

Future categories

Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from August 2011 is empty, as well it should be. It was previously populated by Dangdang. Why doesn't it autonominate for speedy deletion? Doesn't that apply to future categories?Debresser (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just intuitively, perhaps {{#ifexpr:({{CURRENTYEAR}}*12+{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{{year|0}}}*12-{{{monthno|0}}})>1 in Template:Monthly clean-up category/core should use ABS (if such a function exists here). Debresser (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But yes that is why. Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Do we have an absolute value in Wiki-code? BTW, why is it ">1" and not ">0"? Debresser (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This Mediawiki page says we have {{#expr: abs(-5)}} -> 5. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I also made {{Absolute value}}. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to see what happens if you use {{#ifexpr:({{#expr: abs({{CURRENTYEAR}}*12+{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{{year|0}}}*12-{{{monthno|0}}})}})>1 It won't harm the deletion of past categories, will only add future ones. Btw, why is it ">1" and not ">0"? Does that mean that last months categories are kept, don't think so. So why the "1"? And how will that affect future categories? Or will the "1" mean that the present category will be nominated as well when absolute value is added? Debresser (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Done

Femto Bot for WikiProject Connecticut

I would like to request the services of Femto Bot to help track the recent changes of WikiProject Connecticut pages. Per instructions, I have created the necessary WikiProject subpages here and here. I have recently seen the ability to easily track changes on WikiProject Conservatism, and I think it would be a useful addition to the Connecticut project. Many thanks. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 10:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Looks great. Thank you. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For the services of your bot to help with tracking WikiProject Connecticut articles, I award you this barnstar and the title of Honorary Nutmegger. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

Villages, North Cyprus

Hello, I wondered if I could ask you for help? Some time ago someone started a stub for all the villages of North Cyprus. The problem is that they used the Greek names, which are today historical (they have not been used since the war in 1974). Today the Turkish names are used. Hence, as I understand it, according to WP:NAME (see the discussion on Gdańsk vs Danzig) the Turkish names should be used in the articles (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

I have started moving some of the villages of the Kyrenia District -however, it takes for ages for me to do so. I would very much appreciate some help. Thanks, Guestworker (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there evidence that the Turkish names are used in the English speaking world? Rich Farmbrough, 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Hi, you can look at any guide-book in English of "North Cyprus" or "Northern Cyprus" (Books which are published in the English speaking world) and you will see the the Turkish names are used. Thanks, Guestworker (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with article...

Hi, this is my first time "trying" to edit a Wikipedia article (David L Boushey), I work on webpages with Adobe software (Dreamweaver, Flash, etc...) so my friend ask me for help on this (she thought that because I do webpages, I suppose to be good at this... wrong!), I did some changes trying to find more References, and I think that works, but still need some Citations, We are working on it, the problem we have now is about the "Autobiography", how we can fix that?, any help is really appreciated, thank you very much... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinko2000 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Article cleaned up. Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Calfi route 47

In response to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_47, can you explain why citation needed was removed? I couldn't find any information as to why it's "officially" called Seaside Fwy. None of the signs call it that. Additionally it used to be called Seaside Ave at some point but any references to that have been removed. Also, http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy-pt2.html mentions that Seaside Freeway/Expressway. This was a portion of Route 47. I was hoping someone would prove me otherwise as I don't have enough resources 'city planning' etc to find as a reference that it is still the case. Supagene (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't removed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot

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

Edits by:

MBisanz at 10:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 10:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 10:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 10:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37

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

Edits by:

MBisanz at 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41

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

Edits by:

MBisanz at 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 04:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mirror Bot

Template: Request Expired.. *

Edits by:

MBisanz at 03:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 03:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 03:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 03:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A possible task for a bot

I am going to be requesting a bot task in relation to the U.S. Collaboration of the Month and I was hoping I could ask you a couple questions. Right now I am just gathering data for the writup but basically I am trying to streamline and automate some of the manual functions that are required to maintain the Collaboration. Basically the bot would do the following things:

Notify all WikiProject's associated to the article when an article is selected as a US Collaboration candidate.
Notify all WikiProject's associated to the article when an article is selected as the US Collaboration of the Month
Notify any editors who have worked on the article in the past (I would say at least the top 10 or 20 editors at least). Not including IP's, bot's or blocked users. if the article is a US Collaboration candidate.
Notify any editors who have worked on the article in the past (I would say at least the top 10 or 20 editors at least). Not including IP's, bot's or blocked users. if the article is selected as the US Collaboration of the Month.
Potentially allow users to be notified (like myself as an example) if an article is submitted as the collaboration of the month candidate or is selected even if they are not associated to a project or the article in question. This would be similar to how many newsletters work.

I have some other potential things that might be doable also but these are the main things. A couple of the others are:

automatically updating the affected articles or templates when the collaboration of the month is selected or if a candidate time has expired
updating the vote counts
updating the history table, etc

Do you know if these are doable and if so do you know of a bot that might be useful for this? Thanks--Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are as you say newsletter bots that could do that part of the task. The functionality for notifying top X editors exists in some form I think. Updateing time expired candidates is suitable small task for Femto bot or any other small-task bot. Vote counts ditto, but beware natural language parsing limitations - this could be made automatic. Rich Farmbrough, 17:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Great thanks, I knew you would have the answer. --Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42

Template: A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. . *

Edits by:

Gigs at 19:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 16:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 10:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Gigs at 19:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by Gigs at 19:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 19:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37

Template: Request Expired.. *

Edits by:

MBisanz at 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41

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

Edits by:

MBisanz at 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 04:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 08:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 42

Template: Denied.. *

Edits by:

MBisanz at 08:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 08:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 10:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 08:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 08:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 08:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 41

Template: Request Expired.. *

Edits by:

MBisanz at 16:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by MBisanz at 16:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 04:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by MBisanz at 16:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by MBisanz at 16:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news

In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news

WikiProject report: The Royal Railway

Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism

Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired

Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Board elections: Time to vote

News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news

In the news: 60% of doctors use Wikipedia; growing in India; brief news

Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes

WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Femto Bot-watchlist

I'm very interested to having the bot generate a list for WikiProject Conservatism, but I have a question. RecentChangesLinked does not automatically show changes to associated talk pages, and it doesn't look like the bot generates entries for associated talk pages. Is there a way to also show changes to talk pages? – Lionel ^(talk) 16:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is an option for this. Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Recent changes
Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Recent changes talk

Rich Farmbrough, 19:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the quick response, Rich, much appreciated. Looking at the 2 pages, I wonder if it'll work in my scrolbox. This is what it looks like now:

{{scroll box|{{Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/articles}}}}

Do I need the articles and talk pages combined in a single page? – Lionel ^(talk) 23:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Replace the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/articles with

and you are done. Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

Ah... Transclusion. Why didn't I think of that? Works like a charm! You're a genius. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick question: does the bot follow redirects, e.g. in our case {{WP Conservatism}}? Not a big deal, just wondering. – Lionel ^(talk) 20:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should, since it uses "what links here" functionality. Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for building FemtoBot: The little bot that could – Lionel ^(talk) 01:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Smackbot adding date parameter

Hi, I cannot see why Smackbot is adding a date parameter to a reference as in this edit. The date for the reference is invalid as it is after the accessdate and if required should use month and year parameters as it is not a full date. Keith D (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a bug, although a rare one. Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

Smackbot 38

Do you think you'll ever revisit Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 38? It seemed like a nice addition to SB's long list of small, helpful fixes. Tim 1357 ^talk 01:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I will revisit most of that stuff at some point. Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

Michael Waugh

Please clarify. (You didn't note this as a problem but you are a more experienced editor than me.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Waugh_(artist) is an "orphan" because all of the links go out, and none come in? Is this what is meant by "incoming link"? thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes as the box says "few or no other articles link to it". Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 07:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wedlock (band)

Trying to improve this article in general. Also Reverend Charisma article got messed up.Can you help with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherGenericUser (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you sorted the Reverend Charisma (album) article? I think you need to check the licensing of the video clips, they should probably be "fair use" rather than "self made" . Rich Farmbrough, 13:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

New monthly categories

At the moment there are 85 categories in Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. I found another 9. That is in addition to the 3 I asked you about above.

In addition I found that 17 of the categories there weren't mentioned in Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. Most of them I have added by now.

Of course, in the course of the research involved I stumbled upon a few things that need to be improved, or that I don't understand, or that I would like to do differently. Both in the categories as well as in the related templates.

So I have two questions: 1. Are you up to the issues I found with both the new categories and the others we had before? 2. Are you up to adding 9 (or 12) new categories with monthly subcategories to your system of automated creation and maintenance?

Understandably I could write all of it down here, and you could work through it on your own pace. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month drives the new monthly category creation ahead of time, so adding missing categories there is no bad thing. If a category is missing here it will still be created once an article is added to it, provided there is a progress box for that set of categories. It could be argued that some of the categories are so sparse (Categories for cleanup, for example) that it is not worth creating a category every month, only to speedy G6 it once the month has elapsed, but I think on balance it would be a very minor problem if that happened. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

Ok. Then I will add them there. Is there a need to mention templates to be added to SmackBot here seperately, or are they somehow noticed in the process? And I'll make the appropriate templates etc. (like progress boxes), just like I did last time. Can I post my questions, suggestions and requests related to the new categories and templates here, and hope that you'll find time to give me advise and help out where needed? Debresser (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Certes. Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

Templates for User:SmackBot

Template:Year needed (I think you had this one, because a progress template existed, even though it was not in the list. But better be sure.)
Template:Technical-statement
Template:Overcoverage, and the related new category Category:Articles with disproportional geographic scope, which I have already added to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month, and created a progress box for, but you might have to run the bot to create to monthly subcategories. Or does that work automatically?

Yes it's automatic. I added "Over coverage" when it turned up in my manual checking. I have these all now. Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

Template:Where Please change the code of this fully protected template to use parameter "cat-date" instead of "cat".
Template:Buzz and Template:Buzzword Btw, I think the template should be called "Buzzwords", no?
Template:Update after See also issue #5.

Issues

1. {{Cleanup-list}} is supposed to sort into Category:Wikipedia list cleanup as well. That is what it says on the category page. And so it was till this edit of yours. Since the template is fully protected, could you add {{DMCA|Wikipedia list cleanup|from|{{{date|}}}}} to it?


 Done
2. I added Category:Articles needing expert attention to {{Technical-statement}}, analogously to {{Technical}}. But I am in doubt whether to also add Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical analogously to {{Technical}}. The difference being that {{Technical}} refers to the whole article, while {{Technical-statement}} as an inline template refers to only 1 specific statement. I would argue that even 1 statement makes the whole article too technical. Even if one were to disagree with that argument, and say that a Category:Wikipedia articles with statements that are too technical (or something like that) should be created, I would argue that it might be preferable to use the existing Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical, which is at least closely related, rather than make a whole new category. What do you think?
I'm neutral on this, however  Occams razor may apply. Rich Farmbrough, 12:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC).

Meaning that you don't like the idea of creating a new category? Debresser (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I added the category and opened a section on the talkpage, just in case somebody would like to discuss it. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
3. archived
4. Shouldn't Category:Vague or ambiguous time (uses the fully protected {{When}}) be renamed to something like Category:Articles with vague or ambiguous time (or Category:Articles with vague or ambiguous time indicators/descriptions)? And the same for Category:Vague or ambiguous geographic scope (uses the fully protected {{Where}}) to Category:Articles with vague or ambiguous geographic scope. Debresser (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Still waiting for your opinion, or, if you agree, just go ahead. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I ask the question "is the qualifier needed to distinguish between content categories and maintenance categories" - notably things like "Category:Tools" needs to be distinct from "Category:Wikipedia tools" most of the other stuff I find overqualified, if anything, more so now that we have a largely hidden hierarchy.  On top of this having "Articles .... " (while widely used) might mean we eventually end up with a parallel hierarchy for "Categories... " "Images..." "Templates...." and "Portal pages ....", so I'm inclined not to add "Articles...". Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

I think the answer to your question is yes. Which is why I raised the subject. In addition, I seem to remember that I was one of those who were involved in the formulation of that question, and that it was meant to apply only to the word "Wikipedia" but not to the word "articles".
The complication you mention, which has happened with {{Cleanup}}, regrettably, could be avoided by using the word "pages". But that should probably be done across the board, and is not a solution to be used ad hoc. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Pages is fairly widely used, for example:	Category:Pages with several capitalization mistakes. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

I'd be in favor of implementing the word "Pages" instead of "Articles" and "Wikipedia articles", and certainly consider it preferable to having nothing as in this case. But I think that should be discussed and applied to all maintenance categories in one big step. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
5. {{Update after}} actually uses the word "since" instead of "from". A remnant of a long-forgotten era. :) Note the double category structure in Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating. In addition, it has per year categories. Note that this tag is used to denote the date when updating is needed, not when the tag was placed. Something like {{As of}} but only for future dates. Which makes it interesting, because it may have future months. What do you say about using "from"?  Btw, are you familiar with {{Dated update category}}?
6. Please replace the category handling code of the fully protected {{Copypaste}}
from <includeonly>{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}{{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided]]}}}}}</includeonly>
to {{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}{{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided|from|{{{date|}}}}}}}, which adds dated subcategories for the "with url provided" category.
Can these two be merged with an #if:, or is the space between the words a problem? That would have the advantage of removing double categorisation. I mean that at present an article with a specified url shows up in the general category as well.
like {{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections{{#if:{{{url|}}}|&-#-32-;with url provided}}|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}} Note what I had to do to that unicode.
This can of course also be done by using {{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}|{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}}} but the previous code is the most elegant.
Editprotected request added to talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 Closed, and my proposal implemented. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
7. I hope you agree with this edit and its rationale. Btw, why don't we add a section parameter to Template:COI, and rewrite {{COI-section}} like {{POV-section}}? Is not immediately necessary, but might be a good idea.
8. You are welcome to comment on this Cfr.
 Closed, and my proposal implemented. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
So far so good
There are now 98 monthly categories in Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month whose templates are now all listed in Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. In this section we have two templates to be added to SmackBot and a few unresolved issues.
Larger issues are the one mentioned on MSGJ's talkpage below, all-inclusive categories (which I'd be happy to help tackle), and perhaps a rename of all relevant monthly maintenance categories to use the word "Pages" or "Wikipedia pages". Have to leave sth for the future. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Globalize/New Zealand
I created this template (my first) after it was used WP:BOLDly by another user and discussed it at [292]. My inclusion of the word Aotearoa was a deliberate considered act which I shared with others met no resistance. If there is a good reason to exclude it (I understand it changes the name of the corresponded category) that's fine, but I'm not keen on removing it just to tidy things. My use of the word is related to a local cultural movement summarised in part at Māori language revival.  Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, and I should probably have dropped you a note. The Maori language revival is of course not unique, even as far as its extension to place names - as any visitor to Wales will confirm. This being the English language Wikipedia, we provide the names of places in other relevant languages in the articles pertaining to them, usually both in the lead and the infobox, but use the WP:Common name as the article title, and also in most contexts.  There is of course the language Wikipedia which, by and large, I believe does things the same way (using the Maori name and providing the English version, (where appropriate) in the infobox).  The other interesting parallel is of course the renaming  (or respelling, depending how you look at it) of many places in India, here some of the revived versions such as Mumbai have become the common name in English (although I understand that in the city "Bombay" is still generally used) and we have moved the articles. Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC).

Assume that this has been read... Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

Hubertine Heijermans
Problem:this article needed more categories and I found categories that were accepted on the Dutch version in Wikimedia Commons. I suppose this is not how it is used on Wikipedia. Probably only
an administrator can find a solution, as the categories are now in red. Thank you, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just need to find the right cats, is all. Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC).

Help
Can you help me in putting my name in the list of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits. And tell me how can I check my recent edits count by date.--—AssassiN's Creed^(talk) 11:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That page is updated intermittently, you just have to wait for the next update.
Look here for instructions on how to opt in to SoxRed's  monthly edit stats.
Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC).

Issue 6
It would be nice to have some feedback on issues 7 and 8 also, especially since they take two minutes each, but issue 6 is the only one involving a protected template, so there I depend on you. Debresser (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of {{Update after}}. You changed the monthly categories from "since" to "from", but not the yearly categories "since 2007, 2008, etc". And they are populated. What to do with them? Debresser (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
After giving it some consideration, I'd say that since when the year alone is specified, the template is activated on January 1, we could change {{DMCA|Wikipedia articles in need of updating|since|{{{1}}}}}}} to {{DMCA|Wikipedia articles in need of updating|from|January {{{1}}}}}}}, and that's it. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
And that will be the end of "since" categories, and of year only-no month categories. Debresser (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hubertine Heijermans
Did my best not to forget an explanation for shorter text and more cats added, but I stumble on the demands for better work, still there. Could you give clarity. i am not impatient, but very unsure. Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a question
I have a question to Smackbot's 40th task. Could this task be expanded to the following categories: Category:Current sports events, Category:Current sports seasons (and it's subcategories) and Category:Scheduled sports events? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Doing. Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

SmackBot "in use" bug
Once again Smackbot gets in the way, this time at Hungarian Revolution of 1848. Does it not recognize the {{inuse}} tag? This is not the first time I have quarrelled about your bots, but I was just doing very complicated fixup of references and thanks to your bot, I lost the lot because of an edit conflict.
I think your bots are far more trouble than they are worth. But I know you have a different opinion.
Sincerely Rich I know you are committed to Wikipedia and do lots of good work, but this kind of annoyance from your bots is not helpful. Please take this in the same spirit of encouragement and good will, it may not seem so but I do mean it so. I don't think the bot should go meddling when there is an {{700|ft|m}} → 700 feet (210 m) versus {{convert|-700|ft|m}} → −700 feet (−210 m)
Although it seems shoddy now, to round the negative amount as "−213.4" rather than −210, few users have noticed, because most measurements are positive numbers.
After the fix for negative numbers, I think we should eliminate all special treatment of "imperial units" versus "US customary units" by editing all those subtemplates, as a major step toward simplifying Convert; the plan to edit U.S. & imperial templates is discussed at:

Template_talk:Convert/deletions - has steps to reduce U.S. & imperial templates.
In fact, I think most of those U.S./imperial subtemplates (as "Template:Convert/imp*" and "Template:Convert/us*") are basically unused, so most could be reduced to "semi-protection" to allow easier editing of each, as time permits. More later. -Wikid77 14:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Query; Lists of People[edit]
Hi Rich.  I hope all is well.  A question ...
The rule as to lists of people is that, if an entry lacks both a wikipedia article and a ref -- it is properly deleted.
Many such lists are replete with such entries.  I've spent a good deal of time cleaning up many nation lists the past two weeks.  Is there any way for a bot to do it?  And is there any way to block new entries that lack both indicia of notability?  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Short answer, yes to the first and no to the second. (Well you could use editfilters,  but I suspect the edit filter people would say the overhead was not worth it.) Using a bot would have to be restricted to certain pages (like [[<Nationality> people]]) and would have to assume that any ref, web link or WP article blue link on the line meant it was OK.  It would have a very small risk of breaking stuff even so.   Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

That would be fantastic -- even the first would be a great help, and relieve contributing editors of bot-work.  How might we move that forward?  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you create a list of the pages? The I could put in a BRFA citing this thread and see what happens. My BRFAs do seem to take an inordinate amount of time right now. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

The hundreds of lists of people that are listed at the following page (and the indicated sub-categories) would be an amazing start:
Category:Lists of people
--Epeefleche (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are included pages such as List of names in A Biographical Dictionary of Modern Rationalists, where it would be an error to remove the red-linked names. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

If the red-links there are not footnoted, I think they are subject to deletion, per wp:LISTPEOPLE.  Which says:  "If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability."  But, if you think it better, perhaps we could start with a very small and clean group of lists, such as Category:Lists of people by U.S. cities.  Or, (and this has more "gray" entries, which I could cull if you like) Category:Lists of people by nationality.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
That is what I meant, pretty much, by a list of the pages. (The example I gave would escape the letter of the rule, but would fall foul of a bot, but there are others such as List of Swedish ambassadors to the Ukraine which are clearly not the sort of thing meant, but technically fall under the rule.) The purpose of the rule is to protect against massive, unmaintainable and (possibly) inaccurate lists. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

I've been asked that question, but didn't have the response: if the entry has no wikilink, I can see how it can be done. However, if the entry has a wikilink, is a bot capable of detecting it if there is no article behind it? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but AWB isn't.  Use wget or similar to pull the HTML of the page and check for red links. I have the code for this somewhere, I'm trying to remember what I used it for.  Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Is this what you are looking for?  It is a first cut -- some 200 lists.  More can (and should) be added (If the format is fine, and you would like me to, I can work on expanding the list for you).  I wasn't certain what format you need (e.g., should I bluelink the lists for you?).  Also, is it ok with you if I refer to this discussion at the wp:listpeople talkpage?  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it's going to need checking, for example List of Directors of the National Intelligence Service (South Korea) and predecessor organizations  (which is table format anyway and so would be a little more tricky) is the type of thing where the whole list is referenced to one reference. And by all means refer to this discussion.  Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC).

Think this one won't fly as such. Rich Farmbrough, 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Question about Femto bot and Recent changes[edit]
Hey Rich I had a small question about how Femto bot updates the Recent changes for WikiProjects. On Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recent changes you will see that the list is getting quite long and I was going to trim out some of the earlier pages to say reflect only the last 30 or so. I assume that the highest number (in this case 75) is the most recent but when I look at the edit history of the pages they all seem to update regularly so I couldn't put my finger on how it was doing it or which was the most recent. Is it safe to delete some of these pages and if so how do I tell what the most current one is? Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes the difficulty is this: the page size is limited, the bigger the pages the more likely the save is to fail - hence the splitting. The original idea was to transclude the pages from Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recent changes, enabling one to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States/Recent_changes and pick up all the project related changes, however the page will not save with a full set of transclusions.  The solution to this is to blank the transcluded pages and regenerate them, however I'm not sure if the main page would then ever succeed in picking up the changes. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

Your expertise needed[edit]
Would you please give your expert opinion (I hope) on the issue in Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Break? Debresser (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at  Template talk:Collab-gaming.
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Autonominating future maintenance categories for speedy deletion[edit]
Did adding abs work? You tested it? Debresser (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's all good. Rich Farmbrough, 08:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

Great! Debresser (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
AWB[edit]
Are you still up for AWB? I need you to paste infoboxes into the Norwegian villages articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A yes or a no would suffice...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can do that I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 4 July 2011[edit]

News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news
In the news: WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Wikipedia; brief news
WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject
Featured content: Two newly promoted portals
Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin
Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Norway[edit]
Hi Rich. A while back I began adding infoboxes to Norwegian villages, mostly unreferenced stubs lying around from 2006 which were created by Punkmorten (Geshicte). Given that he won't so much as make the tiniest edit to Norwegian geo articles these days, somebody has to do it.Basically it just adding an infobox with the location info county etc and a pin map like Kjelvik. I was wondering if you could copy the that infobox and use some sort of script to add infoboxes (and copy the coordinates from the bototm of the page into the infoboxes to the rest of the villages by county of the Category:Populated places in Norway. So far I've done Finnmark and Sog. Browse Category:Villages in Akershus for starters for example.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
What's troubling you Rich? I also need your help with User:Dr. Blofeld/Country year templates.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Questionable "written like a résumé" citation[edit]
Please look into the bot edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Roberts
which I attempted to make slightly more conform to the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" and, in the process, moved the “resume” warning bot edit to the bottom of the article right above the "stub" notice.  What is in the present article is all the objective information I can gather about the person; I initially wrote the article to resolve a couple of red links to her and, although I met her briefly twice (in 2004 and 2005), I have no reason to promote her or in any other way write in a non-neutral tone but may appear to have done so because all the available information is all positive.
I thank you,
Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 11:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC).

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Boulevard Records albums[edit]
Category:Boulevard Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Boulevard Records[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot.  I have performed a web search with the contents of Boulevard Records, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.phatnoiz.com.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding[edit]
Sorry, I've lost count of the requests!! Yes Gare de all need moving to .... railway station I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Museum van Bommel-van Dam[edit]
Hello, on the 17th of july was added an external link this lemma. It looks VERY much like advertising or publishing and does not serve the interest of the reader about a Museum, please have a look, I have not yet encountered this kind of vandalism, which should be removed. I am myself hesitant of removing, but I ask you as you made a last correction on it. Thanks, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does look like it, but the left link was to a useful page about the museum.  The right hand link (which I have now removed in favour of flat text) was to the top page of the site. Rich Farmbrough, 15:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Museum van Bommel van Dam[edit]
Thanks for your intervention, looks efficient against the unwanted pubicity. By the way, on my request by mail to this Museum about the work of HH, NOT visible on their 'Highlights', I
received a very positive answer, meant to be reassuring, of the actual Director himself, Mr. Rick Vercauteren: that 25 etchings and lithographs have been found and still belong to the collection. Written in Dutch, how would you suggest to use it as a valid reference, up to now uncertain. Greetings, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest referring to the catalogue of the museum: in standard academic works you would cite this as "personal communication" however that does not meet the verifiability criteria for Wikipedia. Clearly the catalogue is not as easy to verify as an on-line catalogue, or a widely circulated printed catalogue, but it is still verifiable by visiting the museum. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Incomplete lists[edit]
Category:Incomplete lists has a few subcategories that don't sort under the appropriate letter of the alphabet. Code like [[Category:Incomplete lists| Video games]] doesn't make Category:Incomplete video game lists sort under "V" in Category:Incomplete lists. Why is that, and how can that be fixed (without resorting to using special templates like {{Clean-up type category}})? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed I'm waiting for Rich to address a topic above and noticed your question.  In this edit I removed the space before "Video", and now it seems to sort properly.  So I went ahead and fixed the rest of them too.  Happy editing!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously. My stupid. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Use ymd dates[edit]
Why do we have a Category:Use ymd dates and Template:Use ymd dates at all? Isn't that an unusual way of dating? Debresser (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they were created for completeness originally. But they serve a (hypothetical at least) purpose of marking articles where there is an ISO style date for a good reason. Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

I removed the template from 103 articles so far, emptying 5 categories, leaving only 6 instances. It seems to be added to all articles related to cryptography, regardless of whether they actually have dates at all and use ymd or not. When ymd was used only in citation templates for the date or accessdate parameters, I also removed the template, since the template would apply to the article also, and using ymd in articles is usually rather awkward. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I seem to recall that I included the template in a small handful of articles, but realised its was unnecessary and stopped. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Caps on HD[edit]
I mentioned you on Wikipedia:Help_desk#How do I work out what the problem is re Capitalization? - hope you don't mind; I was trying to give a decent general answer to the question.  Chzz  ►  09:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, sorry ([293])  Chzz  ►  10:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
NPRich Farmbrough, 11:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Images[edit]
Rich can you somehow code something and save the images which Template:Filmbiorationale link to. The template doesn't work and is up for CFD and ther eis a load of valuable images which will be deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

A barnstar for you![edit]




The Technical Barnstar


For being one of the biggest technical assets to wikipedia in its history. I salute you Sir Rich. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly!  Rich Farmbrough, 08:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Mail for you[edit]
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! 
 It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— CT Cooper · talk 15:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I will leave you to guess what it's about until tomorrow evening then! CT Cooper · talk 17:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment #2[edit]
Was I right here? I remember this is what you told me. Or is that no longer true? Debresser (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done Rich Farmbrough, 11:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC).


TfD[edit]
Just letting you know about this TfD. I would imagine this is a fairly uncontroversial housekeeping matter, but of course one must not jump to conclusions. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)



db realty[edit]
Hi, the information on the DB Realty page has been toned down, hope that works. The information on the page right now is linked to various media report. therefore request you to remove the advt and speedy deletion tag from it. Thanks.202.179.91.46 (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add these kind of tags, but merely dates those that are already there. If you believe the issues have subsequently been addressed, it is perfectly OK to remove them.  Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Hubertine Heijermans[edit]
Thank you for the work you did on the article. I wonder why I do not see any change on the page ratings? It is also strange I do not get an answer on
simple questions or a remark, as for instance I was glad to have found useful reverences, like a list of the Musée Jenisch, where a click is enough to
consult the list of artists printmakers. Heijermans figures there. I asked whether it was sufficient material, as the warnings on top of the article remain. Hope you will help, if you can help. Greetings, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Improper edits by Helpful Pixie Bot[edit]
Hi Rich!  Could you please look at the two edits that Helpful Pixie Bot made in this edit?  AWB removes |date= from {{Multiple issues}}, and Helpful Pixie Bot adds it back.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rich - Helpful Pixie Bot is still dating Multiple issues: see this edit, for example.  If the bot is using AWB, could it just use general fixes and WP:AWB/DT to determine which templates need to be dated?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hubertine Heijermans[edit]
Hello, many thanks you for your additions. I saw yesterday, that the Musée Jenisch in the town of Vevey has become by vote of a Swiss Organ responsible for regrouping museums of  the country, that it has become a National museum. Unfortunately this triggered off the need to restore the building itself, so they closed in 2009 and will be closed until 2012. It makes a difference in this sense, that Musée Jenisch is no longer Cantonal or just of local interest. Regards, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, good luck with the work. Rich Farmbrough, 12:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 18 July 2011[edit]

News and notes: WMF Annual plan; Article Feedback tool; university outreach; brief news
In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news
WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!
Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual
Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder
Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
question about SmackBot[edit]
please, what's the point for such "unreferenced marks" like this one?, for tv series episodes? what kind of references for what kind of information do you expect? thanks in advance for your next answer on this UT page 84.227.9.175 (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Try , for example,
http://www.sonypictures.com/tv/shows/seinfeld/episode_guide/?sl=episode_search
Alternatively you could try any of the dozens of books on the subject.
Also there is no reason that the work itself cannot be cited. Rich Farmbrough, 10:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC).


Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Futura Records albums[edit]
Category:Futura Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Monthly CfD categories[edit]
Please note the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 4#Category:Categories for discussion by month. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

List of tephra layers[edit]
Hi!

Thanks for the The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
 message left by your User:Helpful Pixie Bot. The bot writes of 'first world'. This is a concept I am unfamiliar with. Is the bot referring to fairly recent time near the present geologically, a United States point of reference, or something else. The List of tephra layers is a relatively recent article creation that I will be expanding to go further into the past where there are radioactivity dates available and more around the world for extensive coverage, also where radioactivity dates exist. Is this what the bot is asking for, or is there something else?
I clicked on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias link, but did not find it helpful. A first impression is that the worldwide view being asked for is arealistic or unrealistic, but I may not be understanding. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marshall, Rich's bot did not place the tag on the article, it only dated it. It was Dentren (talk · contribs) who placed the tag, so you would probably be best served to take the issue up with him. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please comment[edit]
Please comment again at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(article_message_boxes)#Categories. I have updated my answer considerably. It is unfortunate that discussion in that whole large section which discussed so many important additions to the template was restricted to two people mainly. Debresser (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Very impressed by your helpful pixie bot[edit]
So I took to adding a date to tags to stop the smackbot from adding more edits and mucking up "(top)" markings in edit histories. So you brought in a "helpful pixie bot" that is clearly entirely helpful and undeniable relevant by... adding edits to ensure capitalisation of the date tag.
I'm impressed. In fact I'm so impressed that I will no longer add any date or other tags and let the bleeding bots sort out the mess. What, no quad-tilde-sig? No, some bot will do it for me. Might as well use that "service" since if I do it myself some hitherto unbeknownst to me other bot will find fault with what I do anyway.
One for your quotes file: "The question is, which is to be master — that's all."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.106.88 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 

Answered on user talkpage. Although this might be a registered user editing without logging in. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Boulevard Records[edit]
== Proposed deletion of Boulevard Records ==

The article Boulevard Records has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:

Carrying out the Dab-CU that has been requested would render the Dab page subject to Speedy deletion via {{Db-disambig}}. As to such CU & Speedy, the undersigned nominator 
 (1) will, if {{ProD}} is removed prior to deletion, defer carrying them out until the deadline set by this ProD, and 
(2) if at least two WP articles disambiguated from each other by this Dab are in existence upon arrival of the deadline, will lack cause to carry out the Speedy.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jerzy•t 05:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)



Whhaaa? That was you?! This feels like a classic ignoring by me of DTR! (Tho DTR seems to me to implicitly avoid including this mandated and non-griping template -- as it IMO should.) Perhaps it was a rescue attempt by you, and a mutual colleague not shown in the history deserves notification? 
--Jerzy•t 05:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


I'm confused here. There are two Boulevard Records labels (at least), and we mention both of them. It seems important that people know they are not the same company.  Looking at the template your refer to I see that it states that a dab page that does not point to other pages is a speedy candidate. How yet another class of pages got into speedy land, is a mystery.  The page disambiguates the term, if it should happen to link to articles of the name that is cool too. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

OK reading {db-diambig} more carefully, it is not applicable because the page is not ed. Rich Farmbrough, 11:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

    Thanks for taking this time. 
    "Orphan" muddies the water, bcz our standard use means "page to which few or no articles link", not a collection of pointers to nowhere. In fact, "orphan" denotes an opportunity to increase an article's accessibility, and thus value, by adding links to it, not a deletable article. 
    What {{Db-disambig}} is about is that WP is a 'pedia, and while WP Dabs among articles, it is dictionaries and glossaries that Dab among terms. And it's about a Dab that can't lead anyone to encyclopedic info being able only to waste user's time on pursuing false promises. 
    Prima facie, (at least) two of the entries are not retainable, per DabRL. What optimism i was allowing for is that someone might have in mind existing red-lks, and existing WP info, for at least two of the entries.
--Jerzy•t 02:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

    Oh, and with only one entry left, that CSD will apply.
--Jerzy•t 02:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK  let's look at this carefully:
With the dab page:
Users will find a simple fact about the record label, that enables them to understand the nature of the label.
Users will not believe (mistakenly) that the same label released for  "The Chuckles"  as released for "Tapps".
Users will be able to create articles on any of the three record labels.
Without it
Users will find no information about any of record labels.
Users might believe (mistakenly) that the same label released for  "The Chuckles"  as released for "Tapps".
Users who to create articles on any of the three record labels might easily include wrong or misleading information.
Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

And incidentally, the dab page did follow the rules under read links:
Unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description. Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

   I think we've each made our respective approach clear. I'm posting a copy of this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) for fresh input.
--Jerzy•t 03:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK cool. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC).

For your collection[edit]
Reverted vandalism after 2 years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, added. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 11 July 2011[edit]

From the editor: Stepping down
Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap
News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant
In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting
WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums
Featured content: The best of the week
Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close
Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Pixiebot: wait before doing automated edits[edit]
Hi,
When your bot adds a date to tags such as {{fact}}, it breaks some of MediaWiki's binary mechanisms for indicating when a page has been modified.  MediaWiki has these mechanisms so that editors can review subsequent changes.  Obviously, no one will want to review the addition of a date to a meta tag, but your edit triggers MediaWiki's notifications all the same.  Your bot thus causes editors to be notified about a dud edit of no interest, and since the notification mechanism is binary (page subsequently edited: 1|0), the editor then doesn't get any notification when a real edit is made to the page.
Given the job of your bot, there's no necessity for those edits to be made immediately.  If your bot checked edits from 7 days ago, instead of edits made today, then it could do it's job equally well and wouldn't be interfering with Wikipedia's contributors.  Or your bot could check edits as they happen, but instead of editing immediately, it could build a log of articles to revisit after seven days for whatever tweaks are necessary.
I hope I've explained the problem well. Gronky (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Gronky's suggestion would help to reduce the irritation when it's done with a template that doesn't even document that it has a date parameter (such as {{Use American English}}, for which the date hardly matters much anyway). It would also help to work around the bug mentioned in the previous section. --Stfg (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I think a fix to the notification mechanism would be better, to ignore bot edits. Rich Farmbrough, 20:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

An even better solution. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but what do we do while waiting for the system guys to look into that?  (It might take a year, or maybe it will be rejected and never happen.)  Disabling Pixiebot would completely solve the problem, but Pixiebot does good work.  My seven-day-delay idea solve the problem to a pretty high degree, and keeps Pixiebot active.  What do you think? Gronky (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I have put a temporary fix in, see how it works for you. Rich Farmbrough, 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

Could you say what the change is?  (A link to the source code diff would probably suffice, thanks.) Gronky (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia Stories Project[edit]
My name is Victor Grigas and I'm a Storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation. We're exploring new ways to explain why Wikipedia is so special and we’ve started a Wikipedia Stories Project, where we’re chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community, especially editors and active contributors in the movement like you. I'll be traveling to Wikimania next month to collect stories for our 2011 Fundraiser. While there I'd love the chance to meet with you and hear your thoughts about Wikipedia. We’ll have a schedule of available times for you to sign up if you’re interested, but right now, we’d like to make the initial contact to gauge your interest. Please let me know by emailing me at [email protected] or responding on my talk page.
thank you,
Victor Grigas (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Hi!
Thank you for getting back to me so promptly! We're going to have 45 minute time slots available to us at Wikimania, so scheduling will be key. At your earliest convenience, I'd like to have a chat over the phone or over Skype to go over the topics we will discuss in the interview. After that we can schedule our time in Haifa. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
See you in Haifa!
Victor Grigas
[email protected]
Skype: victorgrigas
user:victorgrigas
User:victorgrigas, 16:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgrigas (talk • contribs)  



This attempt to meet was an epic fail. Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Femtobot request[edit]
Hi, I've got a maintenance template {{dablinks}} that adds articles to the category Category:Pages with excessive dablinks. It has a date parameter, and I'd also like to have categories such as Category:Pages with excessive dablinks from July 2011 - but don't want to have to manage the categories manually. If I did alter the template to add it to dated categories (using {{DMCA}}, probably), would it be possible to have your bot create/delete the necessary dated categories? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 20:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's easy enough. Rich Farmbrough, 20:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC).

 DoneRich Farmbrough, 22:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC).

Thanks much for all the organization work and cleanup. I appreciate your help. Cheers, --JaGa^talk 08:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
That was #100 in Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. Debresser (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Btw, you might want to get familiar with the two simplifications in this edit, using functions of {{Ambox}}. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
IP editor vandal on the loose[edit]
Hi there. Would you have time to please look into this issue? This IP editor, using different IP addresses, is adamantly vandalising BLP articles. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think -
Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Scotland[edit]
Rich can you add the relative maps to Category:Populated places in Sutherland and Category:Populated places in Ross and Cromarty? I'd rather not do it manually!...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Also can you go through the mountains/volcanoes and possibly national parks of the following countries and change the pin maps in the infoboxes and add relief on the end of the pushpin countries. I've created new relief maps of Iceland, Latvia, Norway, Belarus, Lithuania, Argentina , Brazil, Chile, Honduras, and Bulgaria. We want the fabulous Template:location map Iceland relief etc to feature in such articles like this.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, are you on a wikibreak or something? You've been relatively quiet of late.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I know what you mean. Nobody thanks you for all of the good work you do and the moment you do something which they see as "controversial" or causing a minor problem they blow it into something massive, spout off negative comments at you as if you are some sort of annoying little vandal and then try to strictly control your freedom to edit and in doing so violate one of the core principles of wikipedia. You can think "well ignore the bastards" but then they start trying to threaten you with blocking or whatever if you don't listen and in doing so can cause an even bigger hash of the situation than any problem you had ever caused. I'm sure I saw you "reported" somewhere, an arb report or something or other, perhaps that's what's really bugging you. Not sure what its about but I personally think that people trying to impose bureacratic control over editors is one of the biggest issues on wikipedia at the moment. We need editors to have freedom and to work in good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, sometimes WP:BOLD should be taken more seriously. Unfortunately the most prolific editors seem to come across opposition from time to time, I mean I was being bold and acting in good faith with my Australian template merger proposals a while back and I got a major grilling over it. Editing Djibouti roads for instance is unlikely to attract any moaning minnies but if say I mass removed nav boxes from places in some American city or Aussie county or something it would likely kick up a storm. I think its maybe because you've covered more articles on wikipedia that anybody in its history so from time to time you are undoubtedly going to to attract some unwanted attention I think by people who disagree with the edits.. Above all though its the lack of good faith and branding you as a vandal which is the most hurtful and zapping your motivation to edit. The bureacrat owes you an apology as his failure to recognise good faith edits is seriously concerning.
How are your bot coding skills from other websites? Because we could sure use your bot to create listed of British Listed buildings.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Are place names and coordinates copyrightable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not in the US - well to be more accurate a list isn't, provided there's no creative content.  So I've Been Everywhere Man is, but the one we are talking about isn't. And I think we would be on fairly safe ground if we drive it off the EH site.  They are, after all proclaiming it.  Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC).

Names of places and coordinates would be fine to start with I think... I really need AWB help!!.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Have you had your AWB tools stripped or something?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you do the requests when you have a moment? P.s. I'm getting a lot of city maps onto wikipedi using OSM. I could use some help at one point to set up a list of cities or something and to keep track of which maps we have and which we don't. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I was thinking of some sub pages of WP:Geography or something in which I can list all of the city maps we have on wikipedia, kind of like User:Nilfanion has in the commons keeping track of what he's uploaded. I think I'd start with capital cities but then branch out into say the top 20 or so cities and towns of each country. Just creating Template:Location map Libya Tripoli Old City for instance...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there somebody else who can get these things done?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you help or not??♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Time Records albums[edit]
Category:Time Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hubertine Heijermans[edit]
About National papers in Switzerland, I confirm that the following on the official website are the papers considered Cantonal, in french, the German part has its own. A National newspaper does not exist.  Bankrupcy or change of names mean a big change of a newspaper and it becoming smaller or more local. l'Est Vaudois and the 24 Heures in the 1970s-1990s were the biggest Swiss Cantonal newspapers. On the website 4 are not local: the article of a well-known journalist and artcritic Dominique Vollichard ( D.V.) Qui expose s'expose (24 Heures) in 1973, the one in the Delftsche Courant  Galerie De Fiets, 1970. This paper was merged with the The Hague newspaper, a National Dutch paper. The Swiss Cantonal Est-Vaudois, 1994, De Saint-Triphon à Singapour. The Singapore Straits Times in 1994 about the Nancy Roach Gallery. In SIKART Zürich (ref.) I found under exhibits under exhibits search, on the name Heijermans-Tellander the last exhibit in Aubonne (near Lausanne) in 2004. Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Image filters and categories[edit]
I've replied at Talk:Image filter referendum/en. --213.168.119.238 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Articles containing Sanskrit language text[edit]
Category:Articles containing Sanskrit language text, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles with ibid[edit]
Does anything populate Category:Articles with ibid? What is this category for, precisely? Debresser (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may answer this one: Template:Ibid states: "If no date is given, articles will be added to the more general Category:Articles with ibid, until a robot adds the date."  GoingBatty (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. This template is in use, but the categories are all empty. I'll look into this tonight, and fix it. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It is because of a mistake Rich made in his last edit to this template. {{Ambox}} does not take a "cat-date" but does the same with "cat" and "date". He made this mistake in another template also. This template is fully protected, so if Rich or any admin could please change |cat-date= to just |cat=. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes I remembered that mistake after you spotted it in the other template.  BUt I am worriede there might be a third. Rich Farmbrough, 18:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

If there is, we'll find it as well. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this issue fixed and closed? Debresser (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

Jerusalem[edit]
Ok. Did you get my e-mail? I am Friday-Saturday (and perhaps also Sunday) in Haifa, for business of my own. But would be thrilled to meet you (and others, of course). My phone number is in that mail. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that would be good. I have to sort my schedule out. Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

Very well. You sort it out. Then just let me know. Of course it would be nice to have an hour or so at our disposal, to sit down and have a drink somewhere. But just shaking hands and exchange a few words will also do. :) Give me a call or a text-message to let me know what and when would be convenient for you. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I didn't have Internet access these days. For which reason I gave my cellular number. It is mind-boggling that we actually stayed in the same hotel for three days, and didn't meet. I was there as the rabbi, accompanying a group of 40 youngsters from Russia on a tour of Israel. Debresser (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I live in Jerusalem. If you took the tour, or are staying along on your own, we could still meet. Debresser (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hubertine Heijermans[edit]
Hello Rich Farmbrough,
I hope you did read what has happened lately. But in case you did not I tell you now. At the moment I do my best to explain an unfortunate complication about the article we so much worked on. In fact I was more or less obliged to continue the work done by Paldopaldino, because of the schedules in his work as a steward. He asked me to do the last part myself. But as I always wrote as Kalaharih it was hard for me, as it started to look like an autobiography. But in reality, the main reason was that FRANCE eliminated the french article by Paldopaldino, and created a void. As I am Dutch I tried a small article in Dutch, but where I live people speak french. A few do master english, and my teachers were all Americans. Anyway, it is clear now that I am the same person as Kalaharih. And I did not know that the young man that helped me and for instance created the official website, made wikipedia mistakes with the copyrights, as he send messages saying the source was his own. That is why nobody believes, I am not 2 persons. I am old, and the website was a gesture of thanks for all my life's work from the Commune Ollon. One can find on Internet Ollon the same site they offered me. I have not the money to create a beautiful site like that. I just write this that it all was due to circumstances, that made that this young man, who has the job of flying in airplanes, was all the time absent and could not cope with the work since end of april, and he was afraid I would have problems if I wrote about myself. Therefore I had little choice, I would only like to do my best to reassure people like you that the article was done in an honest way. And I hope the work was not done for nothing as there is no intention of me nor Paldopaldino of publicity. The french article was already in short what the content was of a book written and edited by Mr. Pierre Alain Genillard in 2009, which he interviewed me for during 2008. This book is in fact at the origine of the official website (in french and in english). With greetings Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011[edit]

Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix
News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common
In the news: Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories
WikiProject report: The Oregonians
Featured content: The best of the week
Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress
Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Country houses[edit]
Hi Rich. Rosie recently created Category:Country houses in the United Kingdom and Category:Country houses in England and Category:Manor houses in the United Kingdom. What I need is to merge manor houses into country houses category and then for you to go through the sub cats in Category:Houses in England, Wales , Scotland and N. Ireland by county and add this country house category. You'll find the vast majority will indeed be country houses so you can simply categorize them all. What I want is this category eventually to hold all country houses in England, and then the same with Wales, Scotland etc. Some time I will create a List of country houses in England which will attempt to list all country houses, manors, halls, stately homes etc and can route out the missing articles. But if you could fill this new category with anything which ends in Hall , Manor or House this would be of great help.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, merging is a matter for CfD, I confess to finding this categorisation confusing and unclear - in real world terms as well as WP terms. For example Grovelands House was a country house when it was built, but would not be described as such today.  Manor houses would be fairly well defined, although I suspect there would be some Foo Manors that are not manorial houses. Denbiegh Hall is (or was) a fairly modest residence, would we still classify it as a hall? Rich Farmbrough, some time in July 2011 (UTC).

Small question[edit]
Which template adds Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories with missing months? Debresser (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, found it. Template:DeletedMonths/month. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I asked, because I found Template:WMCSBM1 and a few other templates in that category. Finding a template in a category of categories was what led me to think that perhaps you should add something like {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Category|etc.}} to the code of Template:DeletedMonths/month. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I made the change I proposed, and the templates are gone. So that part seems to have worked. I hope there are no other aversive effects? Debresser (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Rich Farmbrough, 08:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

Some maintenance[edit]
At the moment {{Monthly maintenance category}} is, as you call it, a near-synonym to {{Monthly clean-up category}}. I found 15 monthly categories using it. All these 15 categories were "Use" categories (like Use dmy dates, or Use Indian English). I agree that these are maintenance categories, rather than clean-up categories. Nevertheless I think that when the time comes to use {{Monthly maintenance category}}, that should be done uniformly to all monthly categories of a parent category and in all relevant parent categories. Since the 15 I found are clearly a very tiny minority, and even in their own parent categories the usage of {{Monthly maintenance category}} wasn't uniformly, I have replaced these instances by {{Monthly clean-up category}}.
With an eye on the future, I'd like to point out that when this time comes, I could image that there might be some parent categories of arguable status, I mean, whether they are just general maintenance categories, or specifically clean-up categories. In any case I'd appreciate it if you'd inform me of such a decision.
I have rephrased your "near-synonym" phrase in a way which I think is more correct. I hope you don't mind. Debresser (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I used that phrase because it is user documentation.  It would still apply whether the template was called or the core part was called or a clone template was made. It doesn't greatly matter.  Rich Farmbrough, 11:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Jeffrey Catherine Jones[edit]
Rich, either you or your bot placed an Inline Citation and an NPOV tag on this page. The page has citations for most everything there. The NPOV issues were from 2007. But the page has been heavily edited, especially since the subject's death, and it's arrived at a consensus that there are no longer any NPOV issues to it. The recent mention of NPOV in the talk page was concerning a user's comment, not the page itself. I left a note there asking if anyone saw reason for the tags to remain and there have been no responses. If you have a specific reasoning, let me know and we'll try to address it. Otherwise I'll remove the tags soon. If it was the bot's misreading, then please disregard. MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it's User:[email protected] that placed the tags, the bot mere;ly dated them. regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC).

Much appreciated and best wishes. MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Henry Manners Chichester[edit]

The article Henry Manners Chichester has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:

Fails GNG
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudu ^~I/O~ 14:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Use British English progress[edit]
I might have done something wrong when I copied over the template for this. I just noticed the total is zero although many months are not. Your help to sort this out would be appreciated. Regards,
--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem was a previous edit by User:Mclay1, with whom I have an ax to grind btw. Undid part of his edit, and all is fine now. You might want to point him to his mistake. Thanks for the catch. Debresser (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this issue fixed and closed? Debresser (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
About prose[edit]
Hello, I help out with the Moxie Girlz article. I am still new to Wikipedia in terms of editing. I don't understand the two templates that were added at the top of the page.
When it comes to reference the only one missing is the direct designer... it is assumed to be the owner of MGA. Unicogirl (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably worth discussing this with User:DreamGuy who added the templates.  The part about prose is to some extent a matter of taste, but a little more prose is generally a god thing. Certainly some parts are unexplained. What is the "Message"? Is it on every Moxie Girlz box? In some  Moxie Girlz comic?  etc. Why is there a dictionary definition? If you have never seen Moxie Girlz some of these things need context.
As to references, well, add what you can. For example there's talk of a lawsuit by Mattel (I think it was), certainly I would expect to see a reference there.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply. Since the article was typed previously and edited numerous times and vandalize, most of the news was removed. I'll try to find an article about it. And yes, the message comes from the official site and box art. Unicogirl (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 August 2011[edit]

News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens
In the news: Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Wikipedia (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)
WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation
Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography
Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration
Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of John Shipp (soldier)[edit]



You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.




A tag has been placed on John Shipp (soldier) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies.  TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

At the time I judged the article to be outside the scope of what milhist considers a notable soldier, so I put the article up for deletion on csd-a7 grounds. As a rule, I tag for csd quickly with bio articles but with everything else I am usually more cautious. Why do you ask? 75.31.187.242 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I did check his notability, and he failed all nine points of milhist 's personnel notability guidelines. The only reason I have not yet nominated the soldier for deletion is because I am waiting for the article to shape up some so that I can claim in good faith that the current article's composition is as good as its going to get. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
count discrepancies[edit]
Rich, I have just realised that there are inconsistencies at Category:Use dmy dates. If we look at the subtotals generated by {{Use dmy dates progress}}, some of the numbers don't match their respective month sub-categories. There are small differences for most months, but the difference is particularly large (some 250+ articles) for August 2011. This is all a bit confusing. What could be the reason? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I refreshed it, and it's OK now. It seems that merely clearing the browser cache doesn't do the trick. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it has to be re-rendered at the server side I suppose. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

I have a question about bots.[edit]
Rich, this is probably a dumb question, but how do bots work? Are they autonomous? Are they AI? Your bot found a tag I'd put up on an article and then edited the article to add a date to the tag, all within a couple of minutes. And in all probability you were not even aware it was doing it. How? Is there any Idiot's Guide to Bots out there? Any Bot Programming Guide? Thanks. Trilobitealive (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

They are generally autonomous to some extent. For example my bot monitors certain categories, and fixes up the articles in them, if it succeeds the article will no longer be in the category.  Other bots monitor Special:Recent changes which is available over IRC, or are run daily or weekly by their owners, or on request. The main classes of bots are ones based on WP:AWB  (which is a quick way of getting some task up and running), pywikipedia bots, based on a Python framework, and stand-alone bots which generally seem to be Perl or Python.  Most bots use the WP:API for a lot of their work. Most bots wouldn't be classed as AI by most people, I'm not so sure however.  There are guides to  AWB, Pywikipedia, and the API, also some bot code is published (Anomie's Perl code is, for example, and is high quality code) as are the source for pywikipedia and AWB. Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. Reading WP:AWB and WP:API will keep me busy for a while.Trilobitealive (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Reverse6[edit]
Template:Reverse6 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --19:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)JetBlast (talk)

On links by user "Patriotledger" and subsequent items[edit]
Hi Rich. Albeit a seeming post mortem, might you have a look at this and proffer an opinion?: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Contributions_by_User:Jm1106_redux. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Rich, for having a look. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Albany (town), Wisconsin (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Albany (town), Wisconsin (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Albany (town), Wisconsin (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bot edit summaries[edit]
I took a look at some of your bots (I'm thinking HelpfulPixieBot) and it seems to me that its edit summaries could be vastly improved. See Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#General notice to bot owners about edit summaries for suggestions. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I already commented there. Rich Farmbrough, 20:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

bot speed[edit]
can you slow down the bot to some 15 mins from last edit as we edit conflict a lot.?
ps- what happened to smackbot?(Lihaas (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)).

Done.  Various people thought the name might be construed as unfriendly. And indeed, maybe even regulars read overtones into it what was merely a whimsical name. Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC).

Input appreciated[edit]
Hello Rich, I'd appreciate your input on Apple Inc. litigation. There have been some differences there with a couple of reverted edits quite recently, and before hard feelings arise, it would be helpful to have another pair of eyes and viewpoint. Thanks in advance. Sctechlaw (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much, and it looks as if another IP identified the problem as a sockpuppet. Sctechlaw (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Helpful Pixie Bot II[edit]
Hi Rich. Is the Pixie the one who used to smack? Anyway, re this edit - any chance of modifying so that if the {{citation needed}} has a positional parameter, and that parameter contains a valid date (in this case "July 2011"), it could be replaced by the |date= parameter? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is an old request which I have previously turned down for sound reasons, but I am happy to rethink this.  Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

Re-requested so archive this one... Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Monthly clean up category (Merge by month) counter[edit]
Category:Monthly clean up category (Merge by month) counter, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011[edit]

News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results
In the news: Wikipedia praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news
Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety
Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis
Featured content: The best of the week
Arbitration report: Four existing cases
Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy[edit]
Hello,
I have recommended this article for resolution. All I want is a fair representation of the information from both sides. The talk page shows a history of frustration with accomplishing this. I think it is time it gets done.
Nutritiondr (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this is being taken care of. Rich Farmbrough, 10:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Stand (Lenny Kravitz song)[edit]
Hi! I was wondering, couldn't you put an other "stick"/note (don't know how it's called) for the article about Lenny Kravitz's song because you wrote it doesn't cite any source at all but it actually has two references and because there isn't yet much written I think it's a bit exaggerated. So does a note like "this article doesn't have enough sources please help improve" exist? Sofffie7 (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "refimprove" - that previous tag was added by User:Richhoncho here, not by me. Rich Farmbrough, 23:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC).

Then I don't know how I came upon your talk page, sorry :P Anyway, thanks for the change =) Sofffie7 (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see[edit]
Please see Template_talk:Afd-merge_from#Category_problem, where a problem with categorising has been detected. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. The talkpage asks for input in the ddmmyyyy format, which DMC can't handle. Debresser (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter/en[edit]
Hello Rich Farmbrough, you showed interest in the topic of image filters, also on de.wikipedia and participated on de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Meinungsbilder/Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter; so you may also have a look at the attempted (with support of translate.google and dictionaries) translation de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einführung persönlicher Bildfilter/en (and feel free to correct any errors of language, content and style), greetings --Schwalker (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC) (de:User:Rosenkohl)

Thanks I have done a little tweaking. Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Per your template on Death of Caylee Anthony article[edit]
As to your template and suggestion here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&action=edit&section=6
What exactly more do you think should be mentioned about the Defense team?  I ask because the article is getting very long-in-the-tooth and just plain long, and looking at other trial articles, David Westerfield murder trial, OJ Simpson murder trial, Susan Smith murder trial and Andrea Yates murder trial I do not see much of a mention specifically about the Defense Team.  Perhaps I am misunderstand your observation?  I would be happy to comply. Mugginsx (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to talk to User:Carolmooredc who added the template here. The pixies simply dated it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC).

Question[edit]
Just a question about the maintenance categories that FemtoBot automatically creates each month: I've noticed that the bot is frequently forced to recreate old, long-deleted monthly categories in the Category:Category needed queue, because an article got reverted to an old version for one reason or another and resulted in the old category being temporarily repopulated again. I'm just putting this forward as an idea for discussion, and am certainly not wedded to it — but just to keep things simpler for everyone, I wonder what you would think about the feasibility and/or desirability of recoding the bot so that when it encounters a repopulated old maintenance category, it would retag the article to the current month instead of recreating the old one? Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly a possibility.  However the re-creation does certainly flag up that a problem has occurred, I have been intending to recode to add the name of the page causing the re-creation.  The other thing that would be nice would be if an admin-bot deleted the empty cats.Rich Farmbrough, 06:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC).

Indentured Servant[edit]
Hello, and thank you for your interest in WP. I think you added a POV tag to the Indentured servant page. It is dated July 2011. The matter may have been satisfactorily addressed by interval modifications. As far as I can tell the major themes addressed on the talk page have reached resolution. Your further thoughts are accordingly solicited.FeatherPluma (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is where the tag was added, by an IP. The bot merely dates the tags. lookslike you have been worknig hard on the page, if you think the issues are addressed, then remove the tag. All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 00:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

Problem with image deletions[edit]
I think there were some problems with some Commons images you deleted here that have different names on Commons - for example, File:SecJnShrmn.jpg. I just saw it was removed from John Sherman (Ohio) without being replaced. I know there were a bunch of other images I just reviewed with different names on Commons - I usually wait for User:OgreBot to do the automated replacements prior to local deletion. Kelly ^hi! 16:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes,  Silly of me. I did the Ehrhardt one correctly, so I should have checked the rest, foolishly I took the "reviewed by" as meaning more than it does. I'll review them, thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

I figured it was something like that - thanks! Kelly ^hi! 21:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)



DNB templates[edit]
See the TFD. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Colas Ltd[edit]
Hi, I have noted your comments and I hope I have addressed the. I'm new to Wiki and tried to follow what Colas Rail and Colas Group have done, so any suggestions greatly received. Thanks Colasuk (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:JMY Records albums[edit]
Category:JMY Records albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Miniature Lop topic[edit]
I have just realized that you have made a comment on both the Miniature Lop and Mini Lop topics which you have suggested a merge of the two articles. However, before you carry out any further modifications, please take some time to visit the British Rabbit Council website as well as  The National Miniature Lop Rabbit Club Website.
Because, Miniature Lop (Max 1.6 kg in weight) is a recognized and very popular breed in the UK and it is a totally different breed from the US mini lop (Max 3kg in weight). Unfortunately we have our own rabbit breed registration organisation in the UK, which is independent from the American Rabbit Breeders Association in the US, and even more unfortunately there is only one English version of Wikipedia. If you do a search on Google UK, you will realize how many people are confused between a US mini lop and a UK miniature lop( or mini lop, as that is what we called them in the UK). Therefore it is extremely important, for both topics（Mini lop and Miniature Lop) to be co-exist on Wikipedia. MiniatureLop (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It was the user you already left a message for. Pixie Bot just dated the tag. Note that your username is "Miniaturelop" without the capital. Rich Farmbrough, 08:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

Merge discussion for William Duesbury (1725) [edit]
 An article that you have been involved in editing, William Duesbury (1725) , 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. Alanl (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC) 

Please notice[edit]
Please notice that I have added some new categories to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. I found them because they used {{Parent monthly clean up category}}, while not being in that list. There are now 112 of them. If there are any more, or you will add any more in the future, please let me know, or add them yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

112 eh.. well it is a complex project. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Is it? It is becoming bigger and bigger. But complex? Yesterday I had a fight with someone who recently created a template and a category. You helped him here. About his all-inclusive category. User_talk:JaGa#All_category_for_Dablinks. And I do think these 112 names should be more standardised (compare in need of, needing, which need, that need). And perhaps templates Fix and DMCA are all superfluous in maintenance templates and could be replaced by the enhanced Ambox. But so far these are just dreams of mine. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I mean WP is a complex project. I would prefer Fix and Ambox to remain separate, as they are mainly presentation templates.  But I think the layer above could be glued: so that {{Vague|inline}}  would work. Rich Farmbrough, 10:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

And I'd add that new substitution detection that was developed no so long ago to all maintenance templates. Forgot about that one. Debresser (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right. Fix should stay for inline templates. Nobody ever tried to merge the Ambox, Tmbox, Ombox, Mbox etc. templates? Debresser (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Helpful Pixie bot bug[edit]
Please see this edit [294]. Apparently, when trying to add a "date" parameter to the {{Weather box}}, the bot just does a superficial parse for the nearest closing braces, without taking into account embedded templates. I'm afraid you'll need to do a proper parse including hierarchically embedded opening and closing braces. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(Or add the new parameter right at the beginning, directly after the template name, I guess.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, but another thing, I just notice the {{Weather box}} is supposed to have a date parameter only as a warning when there is no source, but in this instance a source was in fact present. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if there's a ref the date is suppressed.  This is actually in some ways not a good way to do things - some of the infoboxen do the same as do some of the {fb- family of templates.  The better way would be for the ref field to be set explicitly to "{Citation needed}" but the template designers want the "{Citation needed}" embedded.  Rich Farmbrough, 10:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

Hello? The bot is still doing it [295][296]. Are you going to fix this? If not, I must ask you to please deactivate its treatment of {{Weather box}}, and possibly others. The bot cannot safely handle templates that may occur with other templates embedded in their parameters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I turned off weather box until I can put a permenant fix in . Rich Farmbrough, 09:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shadez listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shadez. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shadez redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  Colourlines (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor question[edit]
I saw this edit. Is that detection and the related category now added somewhere else, or is it gone? Debresser (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's gone, the only pages that linked to the cat were user pages of you, me and Avenciencis.  It was obsolete anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC).

Bug report[edit]
The bot has incorrectly dated (an already dated) infobox here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 7, 2011; 13:27 (UTC)

Thanks, infobox dating suspended until  I have time for a proper fix. Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard discussion notice[edit]
A discussion about your edits can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction. Fram (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding tags you placed on "Hollandia Produce" article.[edit]
Hello. You have tagged Hollandia Produce, for being written like an advertisement, and also for lack of notability.  I disagree -- the language, content, tone, etc. seems to me to be utterly neutral and factual. As to notability, the company is a California business, organic produce, an important player in the small city of Carpinteria, where it is located. The products are hydroponically grown. The article refs include several articles in the New York Times along with other mentions. Please revisit. Leoniana (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Leoniana, the tags were added here not by me. Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC).

Your edit to Template:Inbox[edit]
I put this template in as a quick way of putting text in a visible box, and used it thus plenty of times. But on 15 October 2009 you edited this template to a form that does not put a box round the text. Was this intended? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks perfectly visible to me. Rich Farmbrough, 09:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

"Bitey much?"[edit]
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dalina66/Why should we buy a membership in some games  You know what?  Instead of saying "bitey much," how about in this circumstance you say something like. "Hey, you know what?  Usually when there is a new user we cut them some slack in their non-project pages to encourage them to stick around and become a beneficial contributor.   No need to delete just yet." or some such?  Accusing me of "biting" is insulting, when I'm only spending my free time trying to help the project.  You are soooo worried about "biting the newcomers" that your thoughtless comments makes me want to quit, and I have a hell of a lot more article  contributions than the guy who wrote a non-sensical essay about why we shouldn't sign-up up for on-line game services. Practice what you preach. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 01:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for biting - see the MfD for a more detailed comment. Rich Farmbrough, 07:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

And I apologize for being a bit too defensive with my first-go at NPP.  Thank you for your clarification on the MFD, and I will make an effort to have thicker skin in the future. Cheers! :) Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Fluss[edit]
Can you do me a favour and delete all pages I created ending with (Fluss) in brackets. Obviously keep the pages they were moved do but delete the Fluss pages which are now redirects as implausible redirects. OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Fluss flushed. Rich Farmbrough, 09:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC).

Unhelpful pixie[edit]
Kindly tell your bot not to do an edit such as this one. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what the delimiters are there for.  If you are going to hack tags, you need to understand them . Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 08 August 2011[edit]

Wikimania: Seventh annual Wikimedia conference concluded in Haifa, Israel
News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay
In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news
WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms
Featured content: The best of the week
Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close
Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
DNB[edit]
I've left a comment at WT:WP DNB#Bot_building about the new Magnus Manske tool in the area (Magnus put it together in a couple of hours after the meetup). I've never been exactly sure about the merits of importing text from Wikisource other than in an article: but I think the merits would be improved by a number of possible "added value" steps. One of those would be to take into account the output of this tool, and only import articles for the project to work on which come up as "none found" with that matching tool. I.e. remove or sort according to what the tool finds, which can be (a) no match, (b) very plausible match, (c) inconclusive run with numerous candidates none of which is a great fit, (d) > 50 hits. There is actually a good argument for first doing that sorting into four. The case (d) is one either for human intervention, or for another layer of matching attempt. Case (b) is the sort of stuff I'm going by hand, and invites work expanding stubs and adding the ext lk back. So anyway case (a) is the most fruitful at this point for an import.
And what else? Imported text should be topped-and-tailed in some way to make it more useful (will need a lead section, should finish with reference using {{cite DNB}} and attribution using {{DNB}}, both filled in with wstitle=[name as on WS, no suffix]). There is actually a lot of scope for stripping out parts of the article too: certainly the [references at end in small] sections, and with more intelligence much of the inline refs between parentheses. NB the use of small caps within parentheses for author names, which should be a clue.
Charles Matthews (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Burma[edit]
Hi. What's the chances of you being able to use your tools to help with dabbing for Burmese settlements. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar)/Township templates and User:Dr. Blofeld/Burma#Repeated places names...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
What I'll do first is draw up all of the templates. Once that is done Abok should be linked inside two different township templates when currently it is just Abok and so. Most of them do not even have dab pages...Once I've drawn up the templates hopefully you will be able to read the what links here and run something... example:Ahlaw. Perhaps you have something which will be able to read the ... Township links and generate dab pages like Ahlaw with Ahlaw Paungbyin and Ahlaw, Tamu linked. Bets thought to wait until I've created all the templates so the links can easily be accessed in the what links here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
What I envisage is a script which reads .... Township , e.g Ahlaw being linked in the template named Tamu Township and extracts the name and dabs them e.g as Ahlaw, Tamu. It would need to generate pages and also correct the existing links in the templates. Might need BAG approval. I've also proposed it to Plastikspork. Perhaps you could contact him and decide the best way to do it. Meanwhile I'll continue making the templates after I've stubbed some of the few missing township articles for Bago region..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]
Can someone revert the IP vandalism here. Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC).

Thanks Dave! Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Rich Farmbrough/blog[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:Rich Farmbrough/blog, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

See WP:NOTBLOG. Sorry User:Rich Farmbrough, even admins aren't excempt from rules.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!)  23:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

sw-wikipedia?[edit]
Hi Rich, I see that you imported hundreds of English language templates into sw-wikipedia. I am sure that you did this with a good intention! Did you discuss this with any of the admins (not that I am aware of). What is your idea in flooding the Swahili wikipedia with material in a foreign language?  Kindly comment!   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.113.164 (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 

Moved to sw: Rich Farmbrough, 15:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC).

Nudges[edit]
About bots and categories - clarify request[edit]




Conversation - actions required.



I brought this up at wp:ani but it's not that relevant. (Fine details of sort are important, but not my main point, I think we can live with any alphabetical ordering - especially when cat contents tend to group similar items anyway..). The issue is that your bot (and others?) appears to be acting only on recent or new pages (based on experience). It would be reassuring to know that this bot or another bot is applying the changes systematically starting  at Aardvark and working up to Xylophone..
Does the bot do that ?, and if not can there be one please (I think I explained why at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Minor_technical_question). Just mark this section "done" if the issue is definitely already addressed, and a solution exists and has been implemented. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well - yes and no.  I have  a BRFA for diacritics in biographies, and I have done all those pages. I did have a plan to do exactly what you suggest - and not just for diacritics - and for the excellent reason that starting at Aardvark means not breaking any ordering as you go through (if I remember correctly)  but there was one extremely vociferous critic that sapped the energy out of the whole thing - believe it or not you can't change a space on WP without someone objecting - possibly me!  However: what would be possible, if a little hard, would be to do it on a category by category basis: automatically identifying categories where an "out of order" (lets call it an O3) occurs and correcting all members.  And of course setting default sorts for pages with diacritics only would also probably be acceptable. Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC).
ok thanks. I'll be back (or get Yobot to fix it) if a similar problem occurs; now I've mentioned the probably of that becomes infinitely unlikely. Problem not resolved, but probably solved.
As for systematic bot A to Z diacritic work - maybe wait a bit and suggest again. I can supply +1 !vote.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Italic titles[edit]




Conversation - actions required.



Back in July you were a model of efficiency using AWB to strip out {{Italic title}}.  Just curious - not to seem demanding, I hope - would your technical abilities and/or old-school industry be sufficient to the job of restoring those templates where removed, in the wake of this discussion?  Wareh (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Was it as recently as July? And I can't remember being very thorough about it although I try.
Not to restore, specifically (although it wouldn't be that hard), but to install for, for example, all ships, novels or whatever the consensus is.
Incidentally it would have been good to have been involved in the discussion - you may have missed that I was replacing or proposing, at one point (maybe back in 2009), more specific templates - I forget the names but effectively {{Novel title}} or similar. This allows policy to flip-flop without having to edit a zillion articles. I was also installing "Italic title"  (I proposed a specific name for that I think) on taxon pages, the temptation of projects to build the formatting into infoboxes is very large - I see the ships are going down that channel? - but misguided because 1. not all articles will have the infobox 2. it then becomes very difficult to use the infobox without italics 3. it is not clear from the page source how an "effect" is achieved - newbarrier. Rich Farmbrough, 07:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Topic specific templates also allow automatic processing of standard exceptions for example "HMS Midgard" instead of "HMS Midgard" if that is needed. Rich Farmbrough, 07:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

The connection to you only just occurred to me as I manually changed a couple of articles on books whose italic titles you had removed.  I'm sorry if this news of the discussions was not timely (and I did in fact know nothing about your previous template proposals), but I hope even this belated information about the change in policy may be useful in the hands of someone who clearly knows a lot about templates, automatic processes, etc.  I take it you are suggesting that {{Italic title}} could perhaps be routinely added according to categories, e.g. Category:Books by date.  The problem is that even "books" is too narrow: Category:Works by author and Category:Works by date are really only slightly too broad, but they include a lot of non-"books" (by WP category) whose titles should be italicized in running text.  Most everything in Category:Ancient Greek works by author and Category:Philosophical works by author (areas near and dear to me) should be italicized, but I suspect many of them are not categorized as WP "books."  So, if more specific templates were to be developed, I'd suggest that {{Novel title}} is way too narrow: even {{Book title}} has coverage issues for the relevant range of works.
You've already lost me with some of the technical issues you raise, but book titles (more or less) are where I'd really love to see automated changes in equal or greater volume to the previous italic-removals.  Do you see a good chance of achieving that?
Here's what may be the most practical idea I can come up with.  If the article title appears in the lead '''''Like this''''', isn't that the best criterion for applying {{Italic title}} (or DISPLAYTITLE for longer titles that break that template)?  This seems to me to apply perfectly the new policy at WP:AT, which is simply, "Use italics when italics would be used in running text."
If you think that's a useful avenue, perhaps you can take it to WP:AT or the appropriate technical forum where such things get implemented?  Or I can at your suggestion: but I am very inexperienced on the technical side. Wareh (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
No criticism was intended. Yes I miss lots of discussions, and end up "sighing" some of the time - but I really couldn't keep up with them all anyway - this one seems to have come to an acceptable conclusion, although I'm not sure I agree with it, I have always found this issue tricky, and, of course non-critical (unlike invisible capitals in template names <joke />).
The ' ' ' ' ' idea is great - cuts to the chase - in would include ' ' too, since that probably means that the bolding was forgotten.
It would probably be suitable for a WP:BRFA - I have a bit of a backlog there right now.
Rich Farmbrough, 15:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

I'm glad that sounds useful--it really only occurred to me in the course of replying to you here.  So does "backlog" mean you think you'll pursue that eventually, or would it make more sense for me to go to somewhere like WP:BOTREQ, and if so, with or without stopping by Wikipedia talk:Article titles first?  (The policy at WP:AT is plain enough, but I don't want to step on any toes in initiating action on that scale.)  Sorry if this is asking for too much hand-holding, but I'm only slowly learning the ropes of all this behind-the-scenes work.  Wareh (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
No it's fine, I'll get a BRFA in presently. I'm just trying to streamline the way I deal with it - although the average response time of the BAG is long. Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

I'll drop you a note when it's there, and you can mention it at other venues to gain input. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks.  You are a true Wikipedia public servant!  Wareh (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Railway[edit]




Conversation - actions required.



Hi, did you correct those Burmese infobox errors afterwards? Can you move all of the Gare de... in Category:Railway stations in France categories to ...... railway station. There is consensus to do so at WP:Trains. They should be in english.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
E.g Gare de Colmar should be Colmar railway station.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See #Burma .. let me know. Yes that's not hard, when I get back about 5pm I'll get on to it.
category:Paris Métro should not be a sub cat of Paris railway stations as this puts rolling stock into a station category. Rich Farmbrough, 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Gare Aero d'Montparnasse
OK Gare de, Gare du and Gare d' I take it are fine to move, how about:

Gare Maritime de Cherbourg  Done
Gare Maritime de Dieppe  Done
Gare Montparnasse
Gare RER de Saint Germain-en-Laye
Gare Saint-Lazare
Gare TGV Haute-Picardie
? Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Mmm I'd go with:

Gare Maritime de Cherbourg = Cherbourg Maritime railway station
Gare Maritime de Dieppe = Dieppe Maritime railway station
List here. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC).


Hang on a moment - I'm new to this but can't find the consensus for change described above. (Yes I tend to favour the Gare de .. title obviously.)
Don't look at Category:Railway stations in Germany either :) . Lot's of stuff like Mannheim Hauptbahnhof.
Particularly there is an objection to things like Gare d'Avignon TGV are in fairly common use in English, as are others. I'm worried that if you bot this it will make a mess eg consider Gare du Nord.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Look on the talk page - specifically Manheim Hauptbahnhof and Gare du Nord are mentioned as exceptions. I don't think even if I was "botting it" I could affect the BBC pages...   Or perhaps you mean the content of pages? There is no intent to do a search and replace (As far as I know.) Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Yes funny - I linked to the BBC to show an example of common usage.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd also suggest (can that be demand) that the ones moved be moved back. This Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Railway_stations discussion hasn't really established a consensus for such a big change. Also despite being an English word too, I don't feel that 'maritime' is the correct English translation, possibly 'marine' is better, but fundamentally its usage is specific to the name - a literal translation probably won't make much sense. Although not English the French names satisfy Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_an_article_title, especially recognisability. This definitely seems to have been an error in your judgement in honesty.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course you can Revert (using "undo" - not roll-back if you have that) - then go and Discuss - its part of the BRD cycle, although with a month elapsed form the discussion, it's not that bold. Just drop me a note to let me know which bits if any you revert - or if you wish discuss then revert if necessary. Rich Farmbrough, 19:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

I might have but as I'm not objecting to the other changes they exceptions with "Maritime" would seem out of place. There seems to be a few examples in english of the usage that's been proposed/changed ("xxx maritime station"), I'm not sure if "xxx harbour station" or "xxx port station" is better or worse. Must do more research before acting.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Note Just to make it clear - I've changed my position (on naming) from object to neutral - you can ignore the above.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC) (Thanks for the note: RF.)
Will try to get back to this today or tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC).


More[edit]
Anyway far be it for me to stand in the way of progress - if the station name is simply "gare de xxx" then I don't object to "xxx station" etc. I'm not sure about the ones with "maritime" in.
However you did get the capitalisation wrong, its railway station (lower case) eg King's Cross station. (ok so some USA stations use Railroad Station with caps, but that's for another day). Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what was suggested, and normally I love WP's "down" style, and regularly take Dr Blofeld out the back and threaten him with his own sharks for using capitals in things like "Splurgle District".  However thinking about it for a moment will reveal  that it is not that simple.  If the name is "Gare d'" then Station is part of the name. Though I argue elsewhere that, for example Kingston University is also Kingston university, so "downing" is a fairly safe operation, where as "upping" is not (Manchester universities <> Manchester Universities for example), in this case I think the cap is justified. I am open to persuasion however, more: if you can get consensus from WP T on either style I will go with that quite happily . I would indeed personally prefer just "Station" or "station", since to my ear "Railway" is the default. Other varieties of English, however, may vary. Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Category:Railway stations in Belgium could be an example of precedence - 1/2 of it speaks French of a sort (or maybe that's wrong too). As an additional capitalisation of gare is not always done (except at the beginning of a sentence) eg [297] [298], also http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+site:www.lemonde.fr+le+monde+gare Le Monde uses lower case if not leading a sentence. eg [299] No idea what the official French ministry of spelling and culture position is on this controversy.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting. I am, sadly, an expert in neither Walloon (as I remarked earlier today, funnily enough) or railway stations, although there is a fascination about abandoned underground stations that probably speaks to either  a deep character flaw, or to much "Quatermass" as a child. (Hobbs End I think? OR was that the good Doctor?) The place for discussion is is most likely the WikiProject. You can cut and paste this wholesale if you wish. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Or maybe I should take your opinion, my doubts, and the talk page suggestion as consensus for lower case? IDK. I'l think on't. Rich Farmbrough, 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Capitalisation_of_french_railway_stations and on Blofeld's page too. I can let you know (though I've suggested others post here since I'm fairly certain this is a non-controversial thing already decided). I can let you know. the reason I'm hassling you about this is because I'm under the impression that you have 'thousands' of station articles to name change..? maybe that's not the caseSf5xeplus (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It's about 400 - see the list I mentioned.  I was planning on creating redirects to the Gare du Nord articles - an of course anyone could move back specific items. Oh and yes, re: Le Monde, French capitalisation differs from ours for proper nouns (e.g. Académie française) but that's about as far as my knowledge takes me.  Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

There seemed to be no objection to moving the pages to lower casing e.g Rouen railway station. These really should be moved as Gare means nothing to most non French speakers. I personally prefer the Railway Station capitalised but consensus at WP:Trains seems to be lower casing. "railway" station is necessary as "station could refer to bus station, tram/cable car station or even a scientific research station.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes, will try to get back to this today or tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC).


Printworthy[edit]




Conversation - actions required.



It occurs to me that any redirect that is categorised (Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects) excluding those which only have categories which are subcats of Category:Wikipedia redirects should always be printworthy redirects (Template:R printworthy)..
Any chance of a bot for that?? Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC):

Yes, but probably better to either ensure Category:Unprintworthy redirects is in the appropriate redirect templates, and the rest would be printworthy by default? Rich Farmbrough, 14:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC).

Maybe - in an earlier life I might have created various unprintable redirects (spelling and caps variations) that I haven't got on a watchlist and don't remember.. I haven't done that for years since I learnt better.
Following on with the logic - a bot could "printworthy" all mainspace categorised redirects, and "not-printworthy" all other redirects not already having "printworthy". A few printworthy redirects might get missed but that's a user problem.. The final sauce would be to have a bot to tag "printworthy" any "unprintworthy" redirects if they are subsequently categorised in the 'mainspace'.
That would categorise all redirects, with only minor printworthy omissions - the omissions could be manually caught by categorising with "bot categorised unprintworthy" - giving a much more easily human-checked list of possible bot errors. Once done maintenance should be minimal.. Hope springs eternal.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think there is something to that. I just changed 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Rob Zombie to unprintworthy, it was the second one I looked at - and quite bottable. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC).


SmackBot duplicate tags feature request[edit]




Conversation - actions required.



Sorry if this is not the place to leave this, but this is mostly a feature request I think. In this diff, it would be nice if SmackBot would notice that there are duplicate tags and remove the duplicated tags. Would this be easy to implement? Devourer09 (t·c) 16:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how hard it would be, it depends on scope, I suspect that the main difficulty would be dividing the list up into remove and don't remove, dfor example, multiple Expand section, or multiple Citation  needed tags are legitimate (but not adjoining). Simpler might be to limit it to tag knots, in which case it would be fairly easy. I'll submit a BRFA. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

BRFA submitted and in trial. Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC).


Risk list bot[edit]




Conversation - actions required.



I would love to see the BLP risk list turned into an ongoing bot.  We could manage it as an ongoing queue by having the bot keep all the previous hits with context in a local file or DB on the backend.
For example:

Bob Smithinson: accused of an affair with his
After this hit, "riskbot" would keep this in a local file or db, and then would filter it out of subsequent runs, context included.  That way if the affair gets added back in with slightly different context, we'd get another warning.  It would take all the "new hits" and append them on the bottom of the running queue page.  As people check the hits, they'd remove them from the page.  It's O(n^2) on the number of hits, but scrubbing one set of lines with another is pretty inexpensive, since it's just simple equality.  Let me know what you think. Gigs (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's worth doing I think.  The time consuming part at the moment is actually accessing all the articles,  thought they are mostly small. There's ways to optiminze this away however. Rich Farmbrough, 01:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC).


Bibliographies[edit]
This is just a personal opinion, mind you. Like I said, I am, rather slowly, assembling bibliographies of the various geographical areas of the earth. As they would deal with things like the local flora, fauna, people, culture, and the like, they could also serve as the basis for things like, for instance, Bibliography of South American military history, which would be a selection of books about the military history of that area drawn from the bibliographies of the main states/regions themselves.
That will not however include such things as the sciences, or philosophy, or the major religions, and certainly not off-world topics like astronomy. They would probably need to be created entirely separately.
My own basic choice would be to maybe have others create bibliographies for the sciences, business, and other topics that don't have clear geographic ties.
I would think the items to be included would best include separate books/works on the topic that have been reviewed by academic journals and other reputable specialist magazines, and/or included in books or articles of bibliography of that topic.
There are obviously questions regarding how long to make these bibliographies, and that's a separate matter entirely. The bibliography of physics, like the bibliography of Christianity, would be potentially endless. For such broad topics, maybe the best way to proceed would be to look at the various extant reference works, like encyclopedias, that deal with the topics, and to start include only those works which are included in the bibliographies of the articles in those encyclopedias. That would be a start, anyway. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The bibliography of physics should probably include some well known wide ranging texts, Weidner and Sells, Richards, Wier, Zehrs and Zemansky I think are two, the vade meca of various fields, seminal works, and key references (Handbook of Physical Data?) and cross references to detailed, bibliographies of mechanics, relativity, gravitation, string theory, etc... Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Ask Fred, and Ed. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

And DGG. Rich Farmbrough, 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

IPA dump search[edit]




Conversation - actions required.



Hey Rich,
If you have the time, would you mind doing another search of the dump, as you did at User:Rich Farmbrough/temp14? I've run through that last list. (20 articles which I can't do on my own are all that's left.)
A couple things different this time: no article exclusions (I will simply have AWB ignore anything within templates, unless you can pre-parse those at your end), plus a couple extra characters we missed last time. (If you can search for pure diacritics, that would be even better; otherwise I've noticed some more common combos, such as β̞ i̯ u̯ e̯ o̯, plus another character, ‹ˁ› that is commonly mistaken for IPA ‹ˤ›.)
Thanks,
— kwami (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of this? I'll have a look at making this scan a regular thing. Rich Farmbrough, 09:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Yeah, silly me. That worked fine. We missed β̞ last time, though, and if individual diacritics aren't possible, i̯ u̯ e̯ o̯ will probably turn up a good number of hits. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm doing my own search of the IPA letters (the first block in your search), so never mind about doing them again. However, AWB won't work w ˥ ˦ ˧ ˨ ˩ ꜛ ꜜ, which you included in that block last time. There are also a few new ones you didn't include and AWB wont' cover, if you can add them: ꜞꜝ ↗↘‖˕˔‿ and t͜ . Plus, of course, any diacritics, which AWB search doesn't handle well.
Thanks!! — kwami (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Notes to self[edit]
Need to check on enzymes. Rich Farmbrough, 10:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Nested templates. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

List of townlands of County Cork[edit]
I note that you've tried to slim down the above page a bit. I took the matter of size to WikiProject Ireland but they didn't seem particularly interested! As you have been around Wikipedia a fair bit (apparently you've got a few thousands edits under your belt), I wondered if you had any ideas on how to make the article accessible to Joe Bloggs. Would splitting it up into List of townlands of County Cork, A–E etc. be acceptable? What's the point in having a page which 80% of readers won't be able to access? Thanks. —Half Price 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Splitting by barony would make more sense. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

Yes, though significantly more troublesome. OK, thanks. —Half Price 11:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Except that I already did it.... Rich Farmbrough, 11:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Yes, sorry, it isn't hard at all! —Half Price 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox wine region[edit]
Being f Fixed. BTW, hundreds of users have used the wrong infobox on UK school pages (maybe other countries too, I haven't looked yet). Do  you know of a quick fix that retains the data? I can't use AWB on my  computers. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh? Which template?  I thought that there was a resolved discussion which ended up unifying the school (educational institution) infoboxes. Yes I have a fix for this sort of thing. Rich Farmbrough, 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

There is no  cohesion at  the schools project  of the kind  you  get  with  a project  like wine for example where there is a standardised template and a regular group  of dedicated members who  monitor  the quality  of the articles and intervenes where necessary. School articles are each and every one written by  SPA, none of them read the guidelines, and in the same way as many  new editors think  every  new article needs a new cat  for it, they think  every school type or school district needs a custom  infobox. The end effect  is that  we have 39 different infoboxes out there where all we need are three: one for US Schools, one for UK schools, one for Oz schools, and a generic one for the est of the world. A big team has just recently improved the programme functions of the UK Schools infobox, and I've had a list made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/UK schools using wrong infoboxes of nearly 400 schools that are using  the wrong one. I started to work through the list manually but I felt that this could somehow be automated as I am currently running the schools project  pretty much single handed. Any  ideas you  have would be greatly appreciated. --Kudpung (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I am pretty sure I replaced all except the UK/Oz ones a couple of years back.  And at that time both were completely replaceable with the main infobox - I actually did  a trial replacement of each, without loosing any fields. We flatter ourselves that "Ofsted" or "DFES number" is somehow special. Rich Farmbrough, 09:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

Hi Rich. Yes, you're right  about the  DfES and Ofsted fields, but if it was that  long ago I guess the 370 on this list are more recent. They have either used deprecated boxes, or   copied ones from  other school articles. --Kudpung (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Removing noinclude tags[edit]
Why are you removing noinclude tags: [300]?  These year pages are transcluded in higher level articles, and your removal royal screws up the entire chain. 68.35.24.151 (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I was told there was no current purpose.  Onlyinclude is a better directive for this purpose.  Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

I agree.  It should be a straightforward task to take all the "year" articles and flip the logic.  Even better would be to add a comment next to it as well, so people don't inadvertently remove it.  I know I have done the same before in season episode list articles which were being transcluded in another article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This was done I think. Rich Farmbrough, 16:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

United States settlements[edit]
Hi. I was wondering if you could run something which adds a pushpin map to every infobox by state. I did start doing it manually previously and removed the census maps but I got sidetracked because of objections to the removal of the census maps. However if you were to keep the census maps and to add the pushpin maps this should be fine. Minot, North Dakota for instance. The majority of the articles have the shoddy census maps in them which mostly leaves you really having to look hard where the place actually is in the state. let alone America. Eventually the pin maps will have the US state inserts so you can see where in America it is. Of course I've proposed we have the option like on French wikipedia for clickable maps but nothing is happening there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did one.  May not really suited for AWB because of the complex logic (which I'm not sure of yet) - what other parameters are needed for the pushpin map to work? Rich Farmbrough, 19:35, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

I was assuming "coordinates_region" needs to be defined. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 19th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Those album cat renames[edit]
You might not have noticed, but I've vandalised User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp19/redir with loads of ticks and crosses.
I hope what I'm doing is OK, and I'm pretty sure it is, mostly - so I'm boldly ploughing through them. If it is all wrong though, please let me know. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC).

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43[edit]
Template: {{BAG assistance needed}}. *

Edits by:

H3llkn0wz at 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC).
Last edit by BAGGER was by H3llkn0wz at 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by me at 21:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by anyone was by H3llkn0wz at 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 13:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC) 


New tasks for SmackBot[edit]
Can you please perform the following tasks with SmackBot (and ask for a BRFA if not already covered by your tasks)? Since the tasks were already approved for Yobot it should be no problem. Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)




List of approved tasks


BRFA 8

Replace the short-cut template "lifetime" with the DEFAULTSORT keyword and the categories it generates.


BRFA 13


Auto-tagging of uncategorized articles found in toolserver. Tagging/untagging will include all AWB's taggers.
Auto-tagging by request running in selected lists.


BRFA 14

Moving HATNOTES on the top per WP:HNP to help accessibility and navigation


BRFA 16

WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes

harmful articles[edit]
Hiya, I seem to call one you had some criteria for identifing 'harmful articles', can you point in in the direct of that. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it was "harmful redirects"? Unless you can be more specific. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

The only think I recall was that Jimbo commented on it. Does that ring a bell? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, BLPs, I have been meaning to bot that task.  I was looking for key-words "scandal" "affair" "Murder" "libel" "law-suit" etc... Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Currentl see #Risk List Bot. Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Yes, that's it. Where to I see the Risk List? Above link is dead. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll have to make a new one.  Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Was thinking of doing a similar thing for new articles (via User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch, that's if I find someone who it willing to check through the list of them once found. Did you find any takers on your risk list before? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, people went through the list.  I can't remember if I did a second run, but I think I did. Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. I'm looking at doing it now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Found in your contributions(!) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Risk_lists/List_2  Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Text after redirects[edit]
Some time ago you bulk-reverted Mhiji's removal of text after redirects (edits such as this one), the majority of those removals appear to have been correct. While the text after the redirect doesn't automatically do any harm, there are many cases in which it is not wanted. (Copyright violations, nonsensical text, straight copy-pastes from the target article, and so forth). Just to let you know I have already re-reverted some of these and will likely do more. Thanks Gurch (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with selective removal, probably I intended to find a better way to do what he had meant to do, pretty much the only things there shoukld be are {Redirect from/to...} {redirect with possibilities} and categories. Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

(This should probably go on my to-do list) Rich Farmbrough, 09:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie Bot[edit]
Hi. Any chance Helpful Pixie Bot could be modified to avoid editing anything with an {{inuse}} or a {{GOCEinuse}} tag, please? (Please ignore this if it does it in a way that cannot cause edit conflicts. I'm not sure of the technicalities about that). --Stfg (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should do that. However it appears there is some bug that means sometimes it doesn't avoid them. Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

English language templates and categories[edit]
I have standardized (or should I say standardised here?) the documentation of the seven "Use English language" templates and the corresponding category pages. See e.g. Template:Use American English and Category:Use American English. I have added the four that were missing to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. Even though two of them are empty so far this month, it is still better to have them, than to not have them. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Btw, why is it that a category like {{Use American English}} has a backlog notice? It has only two subcategories, each with only one article. I noticed that Template:Backlog subcategories is automatically a part of Template:Parent monthly clean up category, without any mechanism to deactivate it if the number of categories is lower than a certain threshold. Do you think that is correct? And if not, what can be done about it?
In addition, and with an eye on the future again, "Use" categories like these "Use English language" templates, and the "Use date format" templates, are first candidates for using {{Monthly maintenance category}} instead of {{Monthly clean-up category}}, since they are not about "clean-up", and I think that one of the differences between them should be that a backlog notice is not appropriate in them. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what it was for, it seems strange to worry about these niceties of naming, when it is all behind the scenes, but there is some functionality that can be put there as you say. The same applies to the Parent template. Rich Farmbrough, 10:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

I see you are adding a clean-up parameter. I'd create a Template:Parent monthly maintenance category also, with that same parameter. And then as one of the first things, I'd remove the backlog from it. Btw, should Template:Parent monthly clean up category be moved to Template:Parent monthly clean-up category? I could help you do this, but do not want to intrude upon what I consider "your" projects. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Already done - the new template. As to the name I'd have to change bot code too, and really it's not worth it. I only changed the monthly because someone asked very nicely - and that is I suspect, never typed and rarely seen.  Rich Farmbrough, 11:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

If you'd ask me what I really think, if I were to design it. I'd do it the other way around. Use only the term "maintenance template" and a parameter called "clean-up" to add a backlog e.g. After all, clean-up is also maintenance. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
And what can be done so that the backlog message should not be displayed like in that example I gave above when there were only two articles? Debresser (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure I agree with the backlog message philosophy at all.
View 1. A backlog of 1 is still a backlog. Hence all clean-up cats are either empty or backlogged.
View 2. A certain amount of backlog is "work in progress" and not back log proper. But we have not measured this, nor do we have a way of deciding what is an acceptable amount of work in progress, nor how age comes into the equation. Therefore labelling something  "backlog" when it has over X entries is facile.
Rich Farmbrough, 11:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

What does "facile" mean in English. I know it only in French "easy". Does it mean "overly simplifying"? I of course understand your point. Debresser (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is a wonderful word - although I am probably abusing it slightly.  The use has changed over time from simple (and therefore obvious) to simple (and therefore wrong - in political debate with connotations of duplicity). Rich Farmbrough, 11:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Just move Template:Parent monthly maintainance category to Template:Parent monthly maintenance category. And shouldn't the clean-up parameter be added to Template:Monthly clean-up category/outer core also to make it work? Debresser (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes - I have wished for a "pass all parameters" magic word... Rich Farmbrough, 11:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Smile. Btw, I made Template:Parent monthly clean-up category as a redirect. Perhaps in time, it could come to replace it. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you see what I wrote about the way I would design it, the other way around? Debresser (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You want to say that it's not worth the time. That may be so. I personally like to do things the right way, even if that would take a lot of time. If I were an admin and could edit protected pages, I'd have no problem doing all of this. Including the work to bots. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Use editprotected if you want. Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 25 July 2011[edit]

Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen
News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news
In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news
Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research
WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy
Featured content: The best of the week
Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion
Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia category template[edit]
I notice that the {{Wikipedia category}} does not seem to line up nicely with the other centre boxes as it once did. Any ideas? Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC).copied from my talkpage

I think it does. Just that the progress-box is pushing it. Or please show me an example of what you mean. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I dismissed it for that reason initially. But "show" the progress box and the other centre boxes do not squash to the same extent. Rich Farmbrough, 11:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Yes they do. I checked that before I wrote you. Could you show me an example? Perhaps a screenshot? Debresser (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I took some screen-shots, but I'm not really prioritising this one. Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Heck,lets archive this.  I can go from scratch. Rich Farmbrough, 18:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Help[edit]
On User:Debresser/Sandbox I copied some code, then changed it a little. When I press the link indicated by {{fullurl:User:Debresser/Sandbox|action=edit&section=new}}, I can make a new section. So far so good.
When I write something in that section (like "bla2") I can save it. When I write only a section header, but no text, the page doesn't save. Why is that?
Please feel free to use my page for testing. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the MediaWiki software itself. The "&section=new" won't save without content - presumably the assumption is that this is an error. Rich Farmbrough, 11:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC).

I see. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this issue closed? Debresser (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, just need the archive boot unblocked. Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Unsubstitution failure[edit]
A while back, you said I should tell you if I ever noticed SmackBot failing to unsubstitute a template. It looks like this is such a case. Unlike the other times I've seen SmackBot fail, I don't see anything obviously wrong with the begin/end tags this time. I've done it by hand for now. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC).

Archive and add to todo list. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

(Note: Page in question deleted 00:17, 15 August 2011) R.F. 2015-10-21Z20:12


The Signpost: 01 August 2011[edit]

News and notes: Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news
In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news
Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team
WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia
Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town
Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case
Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Empty July categories[edit]
Please see User_talk:Avicennasis#User:Avicennasis.2Fcatpage, where I ask the question why empty maintenance categories from June auto-nominate for speedy, but July categories don't. It seems they have to be 2 months old to self-nominate, and I wonder why that is. Not technically but ideologically, I mean. Why not nominate July categories as well? Debresser (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason was  that I wanted to allow a full month, for reversions etc..  I didn't want the cats being constantly recreated and deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

Please see there on Avicennasis' talkpage, that Category:Wikipedia monthly maintenance categories that are empty receives August categories during the last hours of July, and what can be done to remove them later on. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This issue is still waiting for your input. Debresser (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Dealt with. Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Tweet[edit]
DYKS. Rich Farmbrough, 11:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC).


Adoption[edit]
I noticed Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption using Template:Adopt offer is being dated. I had to do quite some maintenance there. Interestingly, Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user using Template:Adoptme is not dated, even though it is a lot bigger, and dating it to create a backlog idea seems logical. I'll take care of that in the evening. Debresser (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I added the date parameter to {{Adoptme}}, and then I noticed something strange. See this edit. There is some type of timestamp there. And I noticed the same on other userpages. How did these users know how to put such a timestamp there? And in view of that, should it be replaced by a date parameter and monthly categories? Debresser (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
In the mean time let me ask you, is SmackBot checking for Template:Adopt offer? Debresser (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Can't say until I get home on the 10th. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

It took me some searching and thinking to fix this, e.g. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Good catch! Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC).

Can we get back to this? Debresser (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the template {{Adopt offer}} is  on the list. I think {{Adopt me}} needs a finer grained backlog than monthly.  Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

{{Dated adopt me}} is the answer to your query. Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

The previous version sorted by the timestamp.
NIACE[edit]
Hi Rich, I've added relevant citations/references for this article and removed the Unreferenced Template/maintenence Tag placed in 2007. Could you please have a look and see if it is okay? Thanks! Audit Guy (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Hubertine Heijermans[edit]
Just a word to say, that Paldopaldino interfered and wrote today, that he created this article and introduced the images, proving instantly that it was not an autobiography I was working on in order to add final touches. Greetings, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Kamarina[edit]
Hi Rich, I noticed that you added few lines about an Arab bath discovered between the remains of the Greek-Sicilian city of Kamarina. Just wondered if you knew the location of this archaeological site? Is it really inside the area of Kamarina because from the photo it looks in a different location. Thanks.--Sal73x (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no information other than the article. I hope I haven't misrepresented anything. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC).

Template:Advert[edit]
Sorry about the bold letters in the paragraph below. I am just trying to achieve clarity (of communication).
Hi. One of the articles I work on got tagged with this template. I don't agree with the rationale so I am removing it. However, that is not why I am writing on your talk page. I am wondering if you know how the statement "use Db-spam to mark for speedy deletion. (August 2011)" got added to this template. This statement seems out of place if this is to be used in the article main space. It's like an invitation to go ahead and request speedy deletion for whatever article this is placed on. If it is an established article that kind of statement makes no sense. If its a new article then the request for speedy deletion would be more appropriate than placing the Template:Advert on the new article. So anyway I look at it this statement seems to be out of place. So, I think the statement should be removed. I will watch your talk page for a reply. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is to advise the placer of the template, in case it is a speedy candidate. I would support removing this, since many speedies under this criteria are wrong anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for your reply. I started a discussion on the template talk page  here. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Soldiers Chapel[edit]
The bot marked the lead of Soldiers Chapel as too long. I am surprised because - as a rather short article - it didn't have a lead, no heading until references. I created one now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This was the addition of the tag, not my edit.  And the article was, arguably,  all lead until you added the heading. Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for looking! I thought so far, that an article with no heading is "all article, no lead" (which makes sense to me for short articles) but still learning. My heading is not quite to the point, but I didn't want to change too much in an article of a writer who left, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Never hesitate to improve an article! Rich Farmbrough, 08:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Odd edit[edit]
Out of interest, what was this about? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Delete" is the !vote, "just because..." is the joke "(WHS)"  = what he said - I.E. I agree with the previous !voter. "~~" is a typo for a sig. Rich Farmbrough, 11:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

Cleanup banner for articles with non-English text, lacking appropriate markup[edit]
I have created {{Cleanup-lang}}, for articles with non-English text, which should use {{Lang}}  but do not yet do so. I'm not sure whether you need to manually add it to the list of templates your Helpful Pixie Bot dates. Suggestions for improvements would be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's done. Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

[301] Debresser (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

last edit at Talk:Keith Raniere[edit]
Hello!  I was wondering about your last edit at Talk:Keith Raniere.Chrisrus (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, I was wondering what you did and why. Chrisrus (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I replaced {{Merge}} with {{Tl|Merge}} - because the template should ideally be used on the article page, and in any event with a parameter for the merge partner - {{Merge|NXIVM}} in this example.  Once the merge discussion is completed and the article merged if appropriate the template should then be removed from the page - while the discussion on the talk page remains.  SO I changed the use to mention.  Note also that if you know which way the merge should be done {{Merge to}} and {{Merge from}} are available. Rich Farmbrough, 15:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

Helpful Pixie bot suggestion[edit]
Hi. As I get annoyed by no longer seeing a Top behind items on 'My contributions', only to see that a bot ran along, I have the habit of dating 'citation needed' tags when I introduce these. Unfortunately, because I do not chase unsourced material all the time, I tend to make the mistake of passing the argument unnamed, which is common for simple templates that know only a single argument - but in this case, also 'reason' is a valid argument.

If I happen to be the only one, you might disregard this message. Else, it would be interesting if the bot would recognize a date (full or only month and year) as entire content of an unnamed argument, and then convert that argument by putting "date=" in front of the (by the bot properly formatted) date. Now, the bot modifies {{Cn|August 2011}} into {{Cn|August 2011|date=August 2011}}, which may make other editors wonder what the intention of the two arguments might be. Fortunately, because a such template simply disregards unnamed of faultily named arguments, the readers do not see anything unusual.
▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-29 04:53-05:00 (UTC)

Thanks, this is on the todo list. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

More than good enough. Thanks.▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-31 02:20 (UTC)
Template:Refer[edit]
I don't understand what you did here with this edit, but it appears to make subst'ing the template rather pointless as it produces results like this or like this. older ≠ wiser 02:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Strangeness occurred when I moved the sandbox code. The idea that using refer on a (disambiguation) page should now not require a separate parameter, whether subst'ed or not.  Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

2006 FIFA World Cup qualification[edit]
I want to edit all the archive of 2002 FIFA World Cup qualification and 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification to this format:
2006 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round#Group 2
Please help me to that.
Thanks! Banhtrung1 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have all the information? Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 05 September 2011[edit]

News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive
In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia like "apples and chairs"; should anyone who's anyone get an article?; and why fighting and barriers to editing may be useful after all
WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport
Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
Featured content: The best of the week
Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care
Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle
Technology report: Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Replace superscripted text with normal text[edit]
Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Replace_superscripted_text_with_normal_text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Easy enough once the dumps decompress. Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Stopping the bot since the owner is blocked for a week[edit]
I am leaving this message to stop the bot from editing because the owner was blocked for a week. Since it is a bot operators responsibility to fix any problems created by a bot he would not be able to do that in a blocked state. --Kumioko (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
[X] copied from User talk:Femto Bot by Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 15:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I also stopped Helfulpixiebot. --Kumioko (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I have my doubts that will work. Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Autoblock[edit]
Can someone revert the autoblock since it's screwing with my talk page archiving, and bot stuff. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC).


I'll cycle my router, and they can catch up, but the problem is still there. Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

I believe your active bots have been blocked directly. –xeno^talk 17:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Not according to the logs. Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
See [302]. –xeno^talk 17:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Et tu, MSGJ. Rich Farmbrough, Rich Farmbrough, 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC).
 17:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Still the logs show blank. Rich Farmbrough, 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

You probably looking at the user logs rather than the target logs. –xeno^talk 17:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
Femto Bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
OK. Rich Farmbrough, 17:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

List_of_regicides_of_Charles_I[edit]
The sentence opposite Thomas Fairfax, isn't.  "Even though" should probably be "despite". Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC).


 Done[303].  —Sladen (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Maginot Line[edit]
"However, it was proved " => "However, it proved " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 

 Done[304]. —Sladen (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Template:Update after[edit]
Please see this edit to Template:Update after. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am shocked to see you blocked. BTW, I've been blocked for a week also recently, for violating 3RR. Anyway, you can post here, and I'll take care of it. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I am also shocked, however no longer surprised. Wikipedia is, after all, a bureaucracy, however hard it tries not to be.  If you want to, you can also be shocked at my proposed banning. I am making good use of my time on Wikisource, Meta and Commons, plus a side project I have called Real Life. Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, I saw that proposal. It is already obvious that it is not going to be accepted, luckily. I posted anyway, to give you my support.
I don't see any problem with the edit to the template. Am I missing something? Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC).

That is fine then. No, you probably didn't miss anything. I was just making sure. Debresser (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Your editing privileges have been suspended for 1 week[edit]
Per the discussion at WP:AN, and in particular your response where you gave no indication of the required prior approval or noted that you were under restriction or that your edits were in keeping with same, I have enacted the above sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So on the 7th Sept I created 3 articles and for that I get a weeks block? Crazy. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Especially as they don't even break the purported editing restrictions.  Rich Farmbrough, 14:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Am I the only one going WTF here? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Xeno[edit]
(In response to [305]) In the last week, you've used a script to create 92 biography articles requiring cleanup ("DNB00") and AWB (seemingly
inappropriately modified to auto-save) to create over 200 redirects of dubious necessity [306]. These are clear violations of your editing restrictions. You are also violating your other editing restriction as we speak from Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs). –xeno^talk 14:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly that's a fairly small number of articles and they are not by any means mass created - I know you and Fram just hate to see content added, but tough, it's gonna come.
Secondly any AWB edits in the past week have been with a brand new virgin copy of AWB.
Thirdly you have obviously forgotten the details that were agreed at the time in respect to then SmackBot's editing.
Fourthly it is most unedifying watching people "pile in" - weather  if the "usual suspects", ANI trolls, or just folk caught up in the mob frenzy.
Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation says "anything more than 25 or 50". And what about the redirects?
Stock AWB shouldn't change the initial-case template capitalization.
I seem to recall that it was mandated that you would leave template capitalization alone. Does my memory fail me?
It is similarly disheartening to see administrators wilfully ignoring duly-imposed editing restrictions.
–xeno^talk 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
25-50 is an absurdly low number and anyone using AWB is goign to hit that in the first 5 minutes. --Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Look again. –xeno^talk 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
"Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of articles include creating the articles in small batches"  which is what happened here.
You obviously still don't understand AWB.
In detailed discussion there were several exceptions.
It wasn't duly imposed, it was just some stuff you made up one day.
Rich Farmbrough, 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

... "While use of these alternatives does not obviate the need for a BRFA, it may garner more support from the community at large." And what about the redirects?
I understand that you have set SmackBot to change the capitalization of templates.
^{[citation needed]}
cf. WP:RESTRICT
–xeno^talk 17:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
RESTRICT says the community or Arbcom. This was one admin. The fact that the proposed restriction is on it's face crazy is another reason it shouldn't apply. All this is moot, though, the reason for the block is something no contained in either the restriction nor against the, rather hastily cobbled together, part of botpol you cite. Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

If you think the restriction was improperly enacted (or crazy), then you petition to have it removed. You don't just ignore it. I don't follow the rest of your statement about this being moot. –xeno^talk 18:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It was never enacted, it was merely imposed by a now retired editor. Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Unblock request[edit]
You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

What about [307] ? –xeno^talk 21:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not the point at issue, lets keep the discussion focussed. Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

WP:LAWYERING, WP:GAME.  —Sladen (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes I wish people would not do that. "Aha!  but what about these edits.... And what aboout.. " Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.

The point is that the block as imposed is wrong. Digging around and saying "Oh well we found some other edits which we don't like the look of so we'll just leave you blocked, is a bad business.  Blocking should be the last resort when disruption is occurring.  No one was disrupted by either the 92 new pages (not all are even articles) that Fram kicked up a stink about, far less the trivial redirects that Xeno later raised. This is process for the sake of it, responding to incorrect and malicious seeming allegations with a block, then supporting the block over technicalities that were not actually a problem.  Rich Farmbrough, 03:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Let us be absolutely clear here. The allegations of Fram was that I was "Mass creating articles" - this means batches of more than 50.  I was following the procedure - in fact I was generally creating one article at a time. Therefore the allegation is wrong, and clearly wrong. Blocking any user on false allegations is bad. Failing to unblock is worse. Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

I've avoided this perpetual discussion like the plague, and I'm questioning myself about getting involved now, but a very cursory glance at your last 500 edits to mainspace show over 50 edits with the summary Created from Wikisource stretching back to September 4. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the table below. —DoRD (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Well I didn't count them but I was told there were 92 pages created in the last week or so, so 50 edits seems on the light side, if anything. It's not really a perpetual discussion, though, people try to drag old loci of conversation in. Rich Farmbrough, 03:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

I've added totals. I make it 27 and 60 which is a total of 87, although some pages are still in my user-space and wil probably be deleted. Rich Farmbrough, 04:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Rich, it's pretty clear that "No one was disrupted by [...]" is incorrect given that it led to an AN/I thread and the decision to block you.  After a bit of investigation, the root issue is that people have repeatedly expressed concerns about your creation of large number of low quality articles and restricted you from doing so anymore.  That you disagree with this (that the number is large, or that the articles are of low quality) is clear; but your disagreement does not free you from the restriction.You have exactly two options: stop doing what the community objects to, or convince it that the restriction is unnecessary or inapplicable.  You can't just ignore it when it suits you.  — Coren ^(talk) 16:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The AN thread was the disruption, this is the classic Fram attack, that he has been perpetrating for a year now. Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

If you are unwilling or unable to accept that others may have legitimate concerns with what you do, then there is nothing I can do to help.  — Coren ^(talk) 18:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Unblock|Per unblocking policy, this block is in not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. The premise that mass article creation (batches of over 50 articles created in rapid succession) was taking place, has been shown to be false (See table below). There is no suggestion that the article creation was disruptive, or that any damage or disruption has occurred or is expected to occur. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC).
}}
Nvm. Rich Farmbrough, 08:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC).


Counts of biography articles created September 2011


Date

Hour

Main space

User space


7 Sept
16:00
1
0


7 Sept
00:00
2
1


6 Sept
23:00
2
1


6 Sept
22:00
5
1


6 Sept
22:00
6
1


6 Sept
20:00
0
1


6 Sept
14:00
1
0


6 Sept
13:00
1
0


6 Sept
12:00
1
1


6 Sept
10:00
2
0


5 Sept
23:00
2
0


5 Sept
16:00
2
0


5 Sept
15:00
1
6


5 Sept
15:00
1
6


5 Sept
05:00
0
3


5 Sept
04:00
0
11


5 Sept
02:00
0
5


4 Sept
23:00
0
3


4 Sept
22:00
0
1


4 Sept
00:00
0
3


3 Sept
23:00
0
3


3 Sept
19:00
0
6


Total

27
60

That's still ignoring all the redirects you created in one go, which is not xeno saying "Aha! but what about these edits.... And what aboout.. ", because he already pointed it out when you were first blocked, only you decided to remove that from your talk page for whatever reason. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Have restored that section as it is relevant information relating to an active contested block. –xeno^talk 17:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
How many of those user-space creations were then moved to the mainspace? Or let's count it this way: how many pages have you brought to the mainspace (as immediate creations or from your userspace) in that week? 87? Fram (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Less, but I don't see the relevance. The point is, contrary to your accusations, this is not mass article creation by any stretch of the imagination.  Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Why the revert[edit]
Rich, it you want to blank-archive items other than the block that fine.
Resetting or removing a declined unblock request is not.
- J Greb (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that happened. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Indeed it did not.
And I don't want to blank-archive stuff, someone blocked the archiving bot.  Rich Farmbrough, 03:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Ah... I see what happened. You had an out of sequence new request. Sorry, I picked up the two declines prior to your purge and then the active followed by a decline, my bad.
And some food for thought: you are under editing restrictions. Breaching them, and at this point the two declines seem to agree happened, nets a block. Full stop. If you feel that is out of line, re-open that can of worms after the block runs its course. Make the cases either that the restrictions are too vague or not codified in one place as to what you are and are not allowed to do or that applying a block to end behavior that the community has deemed disruptive - either in general or by a specific editor - does not prevent damage to the project and/or the community. Flogging it with the unblock requests is something though that would normally result in you loosing editing privileges on this page for the remainder of the block.
- J Greb (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, doubtless you are right, however I appealed to common sense and natural justice in the first two unblock requests. Block policy, however makes it clear that blocking should only be used to avoid disruption or damage, and that blocks which are performing neither of these functions should be removed.  Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

... can you bring down your number of open block requests to 1 - there's 2 of them active, and I wouldn't want to decline the wrong one :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe Rich deliberately has two open unblock requests – one for his bots and one for himself. Jenks24 (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
But, the edits of a bot are the extension of the edits of the editor in control of the bot - and therefore should also be blocked when the editor is (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Fempto bot only does automatic changes. So I don't see the point of blocking this one. Block is used to enforce editing restrictions. One has to see which part of editor's the blocking admin wants to prevent. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the idea is that is that it is a safety measure; when Femtobot goes AWOL, the owner would be unable to fix it, yet would still be holding the responsibility to do so.  (Nota bene: the Femto bot account has been used manually[308] during a previous block on the main account).  —Sladen (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
A block is not a personal reprimand or punishment (or it is not meant to be - the point is lost many), per blocking policy it should only be used to prevent disruption and damage.  The blocks to the bots do neither.  Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

486 (number) (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 486 (number) (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the 486 (number) (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

SmackBot BRFA 39[edit]
Xeno, the coding error in the Navbox is exactly what the bot run was fixing. Rich Farmbrough, 18:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC).


Yea - mea culpa Rich, I totally misread this one. Sorry 'bout that. –xeno^talk 18:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Strange edit by bot[edit]
Helpful Pixie Bot added a {{Use dmy dates}} template in this edit to Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Why would he do that? Debresser (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The article uses "1 January 1991", thus establishing the style. Rich Farmbrough, 08:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Because of a single use of a date in a certain style you can't label the article as you have to use this style now throughout. If it were an article about something English e.g., that would be a reason, even if no dates were used yet. But the incidental use of a date in a certain format is no prove of anything. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone can always change it if they want to. Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

You know very well that that is not so likely to happen. Does the bot really have to add this? Debresser (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Rich? Debresser (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think if there was a reason they would change it. Where there are no "strong ties" priority decides the style. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps this is of interest to you[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Falafel [[309]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Veritycheck (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 19 September 2011[edit]

From the editor: Changes to The Signpost
News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised
In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"
Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork
WikiProject report: Back to school
Featured content: The best of the week
Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case
Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word
Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Winged unicorn tags[edit]
I can answer some of these questions for you. In the edit you said the article was not referenced. This isn't really true, because it links to a variety of other wikipedia pages about winged unicorns, which have their own references. You might look at this as somewhat of a disambiguation page (disambigs don't need references) which discusses them. The articles themselves have the references. The only reason I could think to include a reference specifically about winged unicorns is if there were original content here not on the articles it directs to.
As far as a citation being needed for the alternate names, 'horned pegasus' makes sense because the earliest known winged unicorn (WW2 air division) was a pegasus with a horn added to it. As far as the 'alicorn' bit, that seems to be a misunderstanding in the MLP communities, right now it's even used on the MLP characters article, a problem I am trying to have corrected. The portmanteaus have shown up on other articles I have found discussing the creatures. That editors are using the term seems reason enough to disambiguate it here. Bonechamber (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

Proposed major re-org at Mukkulathor[edit]
Greetings, based on your recent participation in the article, I'd like to invite you to: Talk:Mukkulathor#Suggest_major_reorganisation_of_the_article. Thanks for your input! MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes in Ireland article[edit]
Just curious - why change, for example, 16th century to sixteenth century?  And if you are going to do it, why just in one section (Food and drink)? Hohenloh⁺ 12:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you changed it back - no big deal. It looks better as words IMHO, and I probably edited that section to change something else and decided not to. Certainly it would have made mor sene to change the whole article or nothing as you say.Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC).

Template Copying[edit]
Hello, I see that you have recently copied a lot of templates from the english wikipedia to the hindi wikipedia(semi-automatically, I'm guessing). Would you please tell why you have done the same? I have no problems with copying templates from en to hi, but I dont understand why such a huge influx of templates is being made right now, that too without any translation.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:OK, I've just seen the volume of content you've added, and I'd seriously like to ask you if you've talked to an hi admin about this. If you have, then go ahead; but if you haven't, I'd really like for you to put a hold on this until we have community support. Regards--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Drop a note then take this to hi: Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

Nomination of Tiffany Page for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tiffany Page 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/Tiffany Page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion.  However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. LongLiveMusic (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has clearly been vandalised, by addition of spurious information, back in July. A simple revert will sort it out. Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC).

Well done, AllyD! Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC).

Ban proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[edit]
While you are aware of the general thread, I don't know whether you followed it after your block. There is at the moment a proposal to ban you from Wikipedia for 1 year. You are unable to directly participate in it for the moment of course, but any comments you would like to make about it can be copied to it (by me or if you prefer by another editor). The section is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban Proposal. Fram (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the way you and Boleyn have been creating the DNB articles of late but a ban is ridiculous. Rich has never had anything other than good intentions. I'm not happy with DNB articles being created either with cleanup tags slopped on them and I feel it should be done quickly manually. But Rich most certainly didn't deserve a ban proposal or even a block for what he did.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, preposterous. But that's t comes with the territory on WP.Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC).

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

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

sockpuppet editing[edit]
There is an open WP:SPI  case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed. Yonmei (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC).

Stale Userspace drafts[edit]
Hi. Did you notice that there are 61 undated pages in Category:Userspace drafts. Btw, see User_talk:Avicennasis#Stale_Userspace_drafts? Debresser (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Stopping the bot since the owner is blocked for a week[edit]
Regretfully, I am leaving this message and stopping the bot because the owner/operator was blocked for a week. Although I have concerns about the validity of the block I don't think a bot should be running if the sole operator is blocked. Bot operators are required to monitor and repair any problems that bot creates and a blocked editor cannot do that. --Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know there is nothing saying that leaving a message will stop the bot. Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

WP:BOTPOL#Configuration tips:"Providing some mechanism which allows contributors other than the bot's operator to control the bot … without resorting to blocks … bot could check the contents of a particular page".  My reading of that is that if you are unable, or unwilling, to provide that  functionality for the bots then such bots will always be "controlled" through the use of blocks alone.
My understanding is that it's entirely the operator's choice, but likely in your own interests to provide a method which is not visibly accumulating in the block history log.  —Sladen (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
My bot was one of the first to offer that  facility thanks to AWB, you saw the shenanignans that stopped me using AWB for most bot runs.  For years I even allowed unregistered uses to stop the bot.  Meh.  I guess the culture is changing and not necessarily in a good way. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC).

Question[edit]
Why should I have my day wasted, my planned evening out ruined, my work (both on wiki and off) thrown into disarray, and my sleep disturbed, because someone stalks my edits? Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC).


At the collected (AWB+full bot) edit speeds in question, it's really impossible for anyone to review all of your edits (much as one might wish to believe otherwise).  Chances are that you've walked across somebody else's Watchlist and trigged them to try and investigate what that edit run was doing.  (This is why I've ended up here on previous occasions to report issues with bot edits).
My general advice would be just to detach for a week, think things over, and ponder how to come back and make fewer, but higher-quality edits, at an average speed where a single human can reliably review them before saving or initiating.  (Which is purely what WP:BOTPOL requires: "Bots … should be run at a rate that permits review of their edits when necessary").  Nobody is wanting "punishment", all that is being requested by the succession of admins placing this and previous blocks is simple compliance with Wikipedia policies and procedures (including the individual edit-restrictions).
You've already won the edit count wars.  By a long way…  Quality, not quantity is the way forward.  —Sladen (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not someone's watch list, Fram has admitted to periodically stalking my edits. Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

In terms of your other point, "taking a week away" I am currently working away from Wikipedia - or I was - on the Wikisource end of things, it's this senseless farrago of nonsense that has drawn me back.  It's a mistake to think that more edits means less accuracy, in fact the first time around the block one of the projects this stupidity interrupted was typo-fixing WP 0.8, which as a reult went out of the door with tens of thousands of spelling errors.  Obviously a good bun fight at AN/I and other talk pages is far more important to some than shipping quality product to some of the most disadvantaged people in the world, but for myself I'd rather reverse the priorities and concentrate on building, rather than tearing down. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

As a further point if someone is watch listing pages before I create them it would be a neat trick. Rich Farmbrough, 03:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

It actually is technically possible, using the same method of me "watching" for the recreation of specific deleted articles (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is certainly possible.  But the situation I was describing is more one of foreknowledge. Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

If anyone is curious, I noticed the creations because of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 3#Dictionary of National Biography contributor templates, where I went looking at what articles now used them (for months they were totally unused, just like thousands of other templates Rich Farmbrough made in the past). In this way, I couldn't help but notice the new articles, and their problems. If I had really been stalking his edits, I would have noticed the mass creation of redirects, with ones like Whatsisname) where his script again screwed up (the trailing bracket? Straight from the redirect target, where it is an alternative name, "Nodessertro (Whatsisname)"). It's just a typical example of the problems with the script creations which lead to the editing restriction (that time around, it were completely incorrect category names). Fram (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No wrong again. They were not totally unused. Besides which it appears that you oppose the project moving fast, and oppose it moving slow. I have told you before that coming to me with actual problems is helpful, creating a mess or attacking me isn't. You have now successfully excluded me form the TfD.  I know you just love to see stuff other people create being deleted, I just don't know why. Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC).

Sigtrygg Silkbeard[edit]
Fixed

Pashhur[edit]
Should be a redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC).


Suggestion for superscripts[edit]
I often see superscripts that looks like these:

The color may be blue ^[1] or orange^{[citation needed]}.
It would be great if you could enhance your bot to move superscripted text to better locations:

The color may be blue^[1] or orange.^{[citation needed]}
Mfwitten (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes this would be a generally useful fix I think.  Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

This was added to AWB.  I no longer run bots. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Unchallengeable take downs?[edit]
Rich,
On the talk page for the proposed terms of use, you mention a takedown that is unchallengeable.  While it's possible, I think it's more likely that it's a symptom of our bad communication about it or something (for which I would take responsibility).  I don't think we have any that are unchallengeable right now.  So, I want to write to ask if there's something I can clarify, or whether I'm missing something on my list?  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the matter has come up a couple of times, both on the Talk:Texas_Instruments_signing_key_controversy talk page of the article in question, and in the commentary to a recent (July) SignPost. The issue is that there only people who can issue a counter notice are the anonymous editors who originally posted the material.  On most websites another person could post the material, wait for a challenge and respond to that.  Here, since take-down has been implemented as an office action no one can repost the material without going against the office action (and in fact, even if they did, it would be removed by editors in support of the office action) therefore the material, which is freely published elsewhere, since the DMCA was challenged and the challenge not responded to, cannot be posted on Wikipedia.  Effectively this makes Wikipedia the most censored forum for this information. Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC).

Interesting.  My understanding from the legal team is that a DMCA takedown must be challenged by a party with legal standing, which would mean that it has to be someone who had posted the content.  If we were to then suggest or passively allow someone else to post it, we would not be in full compliance.  However, I'll confirm that.  If that's the case, then we're in compliance with the regulations and others arguably are not.  If it's an issue of interpretation, I'll find out why we're not more broad, but since Mr. Godwin structured those originally, I tend to think we're at the broadest level that he (and then Mr Brigham) felt was legally possible.  But I'll get an answer and try to report back.  Thanks for clarifying.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
References[edit]



Cite error: There are <ref group=US State> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=US State}} template (see the help page).

[1] Sample template content.

[2] C. 30,000 members of categories with "birth" "death" or "living" in the name have a DEFAULTSORT with no comma, although many of these should have a DEFAULTSORT with a comma by the current methodolgy

[1]

[def 1]

[US State 1]