User talk:Rich Farmbrough

Note: I will generally answer on your talk page (and usually copy here), and look for your responses here. If you see my answer here and it's not on your talk page, I'm either not happy with it (haven't finished writing it), or I forgot to copy it over. However I don't really use my watch-list as it still has 20,000 items in it, so best to reply here. R.F.

FAQ

---

Please feel free to read my FAQ. R.F.

Full ArQuive

---

Alternatively browse my Talk Archive Index. R.F.

FarmBLOGh

---

Or follow my (broken) blog. R.F.

Dating maintenance categories progress box
Articles with invalid date parameter in template	3
1911 Britannica articles needing updates	60
Accuracy disputes	203
Use American English	160
Articles about possible neologisms	33
Articles that include images for deletion	2
Articles to be merged	18
Articles with close paraphrasing of public domain sources	8
Articles with improper non-free content	36
Articles with links needing disambiguation	8
Articles with neologism issues	8
Use Australian English	167
BLP articles lacking sources	215
Unreferenced BLPs	56
Use British English	171
Wikipedia articles containing buzzwords	118
Use Canadian English	166
Articles needing additional categories	48
Uncategorized pages	867
Articles with broken or outdated citations	49
Wikipedia articles needing clarification	215
Clean-up categories	238
Articles needing cleanup	170
Wikipedia categories needing cleanup	6
Wikipedia pages needing cleanup	172
Wikipedia templates needing cleanup	16
Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest	181
Wikipedia articles needing context	147
Wikipedia articles needing copy edit	21
Copied and pasted articles and sections	38
Pages with excessive dablinks	2
Articles containing potentially dated statements	177
Use dmy dates	135
Use mdy dates	166
Articles with dead external links	191
Dead-end pages	2
Deprecated templates	44
Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup	4
Articles with disputed statements	198
Use Oxford spelling	158
Articles to be expanded	211
Articles needing expert attention by month	174
Wikipedia external links cleanup	115
Articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction	212
Vague or ambiguous geographic scope	168
Articles with limited geographic scope	229
Articles with ibid	47
Articles sourced only by IMDb	1
Articles sourced by IMDb	4
Articles lacking in-text citations	217
Incomplete disambiguation	1
Use Indian English	150
Wikipedia introduction cleanup	179
Articles with bare URLs for citations	14
Incomplete lists	205
Wikipedia list cleanup	159
Articles that may be too long	96
Miscellaneous pages that include images for deletion	2
Articles with topics of unclear notability	192
Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes	160
Articles with obsolete information	180
Articles that may contain original research	210
Orphaned articles	122
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations	185
Articles lacking page references	134
Pages with non-English text lacking appropriate markup	62
Use Pakistani English	140
Articles with peacock terms	179
Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention	194
Articles with minor POV problems	153
Articles with a promotional tone	184
Articles with sections that need to be turned into prose	168
User-created public domain files	33113
Articles slanted towards recent events	150
Recently revised	2
Articles needing additional references	228
Articles lacking reliable references	216
Wikipedia articles needing reorganization	158
Wikipedia articles needing rewrite	184
Articles needing sections	4
Articles with excessive see also sections	3
Self-contradictory articles	120
Articles lacking sources	207
Wikipedia spam cleanup	95
Article sections to be split	2
Articles to be split	79
Wikipedia articles with style issues by month	204
Suspected copyright infringements without a source	20
Articles requiring tables	17
Talk pages that include images for deletion	1
Wikipedia articles that are too technical	202
Templates that include images for deletion	1
Vague or ambiguous time	195
Wikipedia articles needing time reference citations	71
Articles with trivia sections	93
Articles with unsourced statements	234
Wikipedia articles in need of updating	196
User pages that include images for deletion	2
Userspace drafts	219
Wikipedia articles needing factual verification	204
Articles needing more viewpoints	191
Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases	183
Articles with weasel words	190
Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify	195
Wikipedia articles needing a junction list	34
Wikipedia articles without plot summaries	157
Articles needing the year an event occurred	115
Autobiographical articles	189
Total	46598

Threads

• 
  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).

FYI

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)

Blocked

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)

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)

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

Context at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please block Rich Farmbrough - thousands of unnecessary capitalization changes.

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:

1. Running an unapproved automated bot on your main account - explicitly disallowed by the bot policy
2. Not responding to concerns about your bots, and blanking instead - bad bot operator practice
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).

SmackBot STOP bug

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[1][2] including the very capitalisation changes under discussion[3]. 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[4] 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[5], 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[6], 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, [7] (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)

--

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

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).

B.J. Nikkel

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).

Is it not possible...

...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)

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)

Dating dead link templates now done by AWB genfixes

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

1. Category:Year of birth missing
2. Category:Year of birth missing (living people)
3. Category:Year of birth unknown
4. Category:Date of birth missing
5. Category:Date of birth missing (living people)
6. Category:Date of birth unknown
7. Category:Place of birth missing
8. Category:Place of birth missing (living people)
9. Category:Place of birth unknown
10. Category:Year of death missing
11. Category:Year of death unknown
12. Category:Date of death unknown
13. Category:Place of death missing
14. Category:Place of death unknown
15. Category:Missing middle or first names

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

ETA for dumps

ETA 2011-01-08 21:36:43... ?Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Telecom Corridor Genealoy Project article

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).

--

Pages to check (note to self)

1. Demographics of Peru
2. FastTrack
3. Elizabeth Howlett
4. ATLAS experiment
5. STS-80
6. Formiciinae
7. 24 Hours of Daytona
8. Honda Accord Hybrid
9. Scalable Link Interface
10. SuperQuest
11. Government of Ukraine
12. French European Constitution referendum, 2005
13. Kennecott Utah Copper
14. Hal Foster (art critic)
15. Wazap!
16. David Glass (businessman)
17. Studies related to Microsoft
18. The Academy for Mathematics, Science, and Engineering
19. NK SAŠK Napredak
20. California Heaven
21. David Belfall
22. History of the English fiscal system
23. Saving Jane
24. List of the largest fixed satellite operators
25. Transnistrian border customs issues
26. Fenway (MBTA station)
27. War Stories with Oliver North
28. Mahon Tribunal
29. Air Reserve Technician Program
30. Hayley Peirsol
31. Dakar Accord
32. C.D. Olivais e Moscavide
33. Extra Space Storage
34. Space (Ibiza nightclub)
35. African Union Mission to Somalia
36. Zhdanovichi Stadion
37. Zack Hexum
38. List of South African films
39. Iraq War troop surge of 2007
40. DanceLife
41. Oxiana Limited
42. Sony Music Studios
43. Sarah Wykes
44. Linux gaming
45. Aviant
46. Cathedral School for Boys
47. Tamara Lorincz
48. Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
49. When Women Rule the World
50. Egyptian films of the 2000s
51. Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq
52. FIFA Street 3
53. 2008 NRJ Music Awards
54. Crime and violence in Latin America
55. Imperium Romanum (video game)
56. List of CNN anchors
57. Gujarat International Finance Tec-City
58. TVP HD

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

Dab page needed

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

Followup on Jacob Barron

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 [8].

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).

--

Unblock

{{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).}}

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 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).

Hi!

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).

--

Template:Pufc

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)

--

Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup from August 2010

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).

wp:ani remember?

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:

1. 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
2. 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
3. User:Rich Farmbrough requests ("unblock|To join the discussions at ANI."[13] asking for unblock to be able to respond to WP:ANI
4. User:Wknight94 grants unblock request[14], giving Rich the ability to respond to WP:ANI
5. Time passes…, lots of edits do happen, but not to WP:ANI
6. This thread gets started as a prompting to reply to WP:ANI
7. 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).

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

1. 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)

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).

Wikipedia templates needing cleanup

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)

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

Date feedback

"October 31–1 November 1918"→"31–1 October November 1918"[22] —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).

About bots and categories - clarify request

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 definately 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)

ANI thread

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).