User talk:Rich Farmbrough

User:Helpful Pixie Bot main backlog
Total	46432

• This page has been viewed 383949 times. Plus one when I wrote this, plus you looking at it now.

Femto's Box Th 3 Ed 5 Ms 7

Links FAQ Talk Archive Index follow my blog

Wikilove guest post?

Dear Rich,

I am starting a blog about wikilove and the wiki nature. Not necessarily mediawiki or wikipedia, but with guest posts from wikipedians and others who clearly get and are inspired by it. (one of my favorite personal examples is someone who went around tagging everything with 2d barcodes that linked to a webpage where he would write about it... during the initial surge of enthusiasm about cellphone barcode-readers)

Would you be willing to write a guest post about something that has inspired you recently? It would be extra cool to have an additional post about things that inspire your bots ;-) I like to think of them holding secret meetings on the small language wikis, protected from rc patrollers by their bot flags...

Regards, –SJ+ 19:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not feeling the Wikilove right now.... but I'll keep this in mind nonetheless. Rich Farmbrough, 17:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Buatan Silver Strip

Richard Farmbrough, in regard to this article, I cannot verify the sources:

• Peralta, Jesus T. "The Butuan palaeograph: ethnographic implications of an ancient script," in Archipelago 6:A-55 (1979): 31-33.
• Santos, Hector. "Artifacts with writing revisited" in Sulat sa Tansô, 2:5 (June 1995), 1.
• -----. "Other pre-Hispanic writing artifacts" in Sulat sa Tansô, 2:2 (February 1995), 1.
• -----. "The Butuan Silver Strip" in Sulat sa Tansô, 2:2 (February 1995), 3.

The last three are circular, in that the online version Sulat sa Tansô is on the same web site as the one linked reference on the article page. I cannot find any academic articles by Santos or Peralta in lexis/nexis, Jstor, Muse, or Google scholar, and only one passing mention of the strip in a hindustan times article that reprints a report from the Asian News International, apparently a wire service, in lexis/nexis. I cannot find a journal named Archipelago that treats this kind of topic. There's a book which google says contains the term, but there are only a few copies in libraries. I'm not sure it is notable, but I thought I'd run the issue by you. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This sort of stuff is frustrating, I might be able to get a copy of the book from the Bodlian some time thins month, can you note the details here. Rich Farmbrough, 11:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

Also might be worth trying ot contact Peralta if he si still around, he may be able to sebd a copy of his article. Rich Farmbrough, 11:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

I'll see about Peralta, that's a good notion. A link from worldcat about the book, I'll put in an interlibrary loan, I might be able to get it from florida or georgetown. Thanks for the help, --Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have mislaid the original article this relates to (possibly deleted). If anyone finds it, please post here. Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

From SignPost

Approximately 3% of editors account for 85% of contributions to the project, according to the statistician, and participation among this group has declined "even more sharply" than the active registered userbase in toto.

Funny that. Rich Farmbrough, 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

Unchallengeable take downs?

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)

Waiting time for Helpful Pixie Bot

In a recent discussion on this talk page, you agreed to set a waiting time for HPbot, but you didn't set this for IP edits for some unknown reason. This creates siutatuions like [1] where 7 times in 20 minutes you edit the same article while an IP is actively editing it, thereby possibly creating edit conflicts only because the bot won't wait for an hour or so before making its edit.

The same happened e.g. here with three bot edits in five minutes.

I also notice that the waiting period for non-IP edits only seems to be about 10 minutes, even though you said that you had increased it to 1 hour[2]. Any reason that you don't actually wait for 1 hour, and for IPs as well? Fram (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did set it to 1 hour but the effectiveness became zero as I predicted. I now have it on twice the previous delay, and effectiveness is about 50% at a guess. Rich Farmbrough, 12:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

I unblocked this bot on the very clear undertaking you gave me. As you have reneged on this I have reblocked the bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed it in build 615. That proved ineffective, so I changed it again in build 616. This isn't causing any complaints from the editors who are adding the tags, which is my touchstone, not, with all due respect, what you or Fram might think. Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC).

(ec)What do you mean by "effectiveness"? Are there pages that should get tag-dated but don't, due to the delay? Or do other bots get there before yours (and why is that a problem?)? Or something else? Apart from that, any reason that you can't implement the same delay for IPs, avoiding (from today) four bot edits in seven minutes to the same article[3]? Fram (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also be interested in the answer to the questions above as it makes no sense to me. I see no compelling reason to unblock this bot considering all the factors (the number of errors it seems to make, and the lack of responsiveness from the operator, the number of complaints on this talk page, ...). Another bot performing the same task seems to receive no complaints and is doing the job perfectly well.

RE This isn't causing any complaints from the editors who are adding the tags, it was due precisely to complaints/feedback from the bot's "clients" that this delay is being demanded. Your dismissive response to User:EEng and failure to follow through showed how you respond to your "touchstone".

To summarise I propose leaving this bot blocked indefinitely as I foresee no end to the problems encountered so far. My patience is fairly well exhausted on this matter and other bots are doing the same work without any problems, so there is no loss to Wikipedia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that you treat that other bot differently, since it's editing at 10 minute delay is considered fine and dandy. This is simply prejudice brought about by the slinging of mud, and blocking the bot is bad for the encyclopedia. I addressed EEngs concerns by allowing a much longer delay in his case, as I have done for anyone who has raised the concern. Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

AnomieBot has a twenty minute delay, not a ten minute delay, and uses the same twenty minute delay for IPs... Fram (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBOT running alone has a 20-minute delay. I have some experimental code running that automatically adjusts the delay to match (within reason) if Helpful Pixie Bot has been running faster; I did this because, way back when I started running the task, it was proposed that AnomieBOT use the same delay as (then-)SmackBot and Rich kept resetting his bot to just slightly faster. That seems to be what happened here, too, BTW: Rich turned his bot to about 19 minutes, then 18, then 16, then 14, then 10 over the course of 4 days. Anomie⚔ 12:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that AnomieBOT was also running at 10 minutes and it doesn't make sense to me that AnomieBOT's delay should be affected by other bot's settings. It's as if you two are competing with each other, for some unknown reason, and I don't see this being helpful to the encyclopedia. This work is completely non-urgent and a delay of 24 hours would seem perfectly adequate to me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No competition on my part, just parity. And it lets me know to do things like this. A delay of 24 hours is IMO too long, as on even a moderately active article the bot would never be allowed to edit. Anomie⚔ 15:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course you would still get to see new templates regardless of which bot edits first, since Helpful Pixie Bot wouldn't know about them either - and you have code I thnk you asid to capture these cases. Interestingly that is one reason I find AnomieBOT frustrating - that it clears certain hard cases, which in my old (AWB based) daily workflow I would see the morning after kicking off a run, enabling me to keep the bot up to date. Another advantage of an AWB daily run was that an actual delay was built in, due to the time it took to build the list and the relatively low editing speed. A third advantage was far less reads of Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC).

Sigh. Time to unblock this, since the block was done on the mistaken basis that I had reneged on an undertaking to MSGJ, which even if correct would not be a reason for a block. Blocks are not punitive. Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

• Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

• News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

• In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

• Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

• WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

• Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The death of Abu Bakr ibn Umar

Hi Rich Farmborough. I've open an RFC at The death of Abu Bakr ibn Umar. An editor states that it is not a proper RFC. Would you kindly check for me all is well before I respond to one of the editors.

Thanks

Tamsier (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Thanks Rich for clearifying the policy.

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

My pleasure. Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Bot Request (Ice Hockey)

Hi Rich:  I just stumbled on your user page and saw your comments about some of your bot army not yet having edited any pages; if you're looking for something to keep them (and you) occupied for a brief, fairly straight forward single pass task, I was actually going to make a request at bot requests, but just haven't yet.  The details of what I'm looking for are in this talk page conversation and are marked with a  yellow sidebar; if you'd care to take a look.  If you're interested in training one of your minions for this task, please let me know if you have any questions or if any clarification is needed.  If you're uninterested, for whatever reason, no problem; I can make a bot request at the appropriate message board, I just thought that, since I came across your page, maybe that was a sign that you were looking for a reasonable little automated task.  And, of course, I trust your bots are very careful to test themselves before running roughshot through a field of 10,000+ articles.  Thx — Who R you? Talk 05:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I looked a this, it seems straight forward. Of the five templates that redirect there, only one is in use, the remaining use (out of the other four) I have removed. This will simplify matters for all concerned. There is no need to change the remaining instances of {{Infobox Ice Hockey Player}} to {{Infobox ice hockey player}} except where the page is being edited for other reasons - all generic AWB edits will fix this on the fly. Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

{{User talk:Cyberpower678/Statussig}} may be contrary to the guidelines. I wouldn't mention it but you never know when someone who attaches more importance to rules than results will review your edits. But seriously the more you sign the more that page becomes a vandal vector. Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

I was expecting a response on my page. I see no issues according to the guidelines other than the length of the string. The colors are acceptable and can still be viewed if by a person having trouble seeing colors. It does not have flashy text or font violations. It neither has images or videos. The signature is also not a space hogger. If I do run into somebody that wishes to complain about my signature, I will fix it on the spot. I am working on making the signature shorter so half of the edit page isn't just the code for my signature. If you respond, please send a TB.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

• The problem is that the having the colour transcluded (while clever) creates a vector for (among others) what are crudely known as "penis vandals" - who can replace that page with something like blue">[[image:My very distasteful picture.jpg]]. Not a big deal now you have 20 or 30 transclusions, but when it is 20k transclusions....
• I can't leave a TB just now as some clown seems to have blocked me.
• I must have used "Grok" stats - of course the number is outdated now, anyway, but it surprised me.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

That stinks that you are blocked. If my signature creates too many problems or causes to many disturbances, I will kill the template.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is something that happens, there are over a thousand admins, some of the will make mistakes some of the time. And the more you do the more likely you are to be subject to one of those mistakes. Simple arithmetic, and a known problem - (User:Hans Adler drew attention to this in 2008 when he said: "An editor who works hard on content 40 hours/week and gets reported to ANI once a month is notorious. An editor who does an hour of wiki gnoming every Sunday morning and gets reported to ANI twice a year is a valuable member of the community..." While I can't yet claim notoriety, the only way to definitely avoid it is to stop improving the project. On-wiki dramah is just something you have to roll with. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Violation of editing restrictions

Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval).

I have blocked you for two weeks for semi-automated violations of this editing restriction. –xeno^talk 16:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow! Quacks like someone who failed to get the result he wanted at Arbcom, ... but go on, which semi automatic edits (or edit) did you have in mind? Rich Farmbrough, 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Well, those arbitrators who declined to accept the case felt that your behaviour could be adequately controlled by the editing restrictions. Unfortunately that means that other administrators will have to enforce same... Here are some of the specific violations: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] –xeno^talk 16:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And which of those edits are you claiming does not affect the rendered page? Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

changing {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}} does not affect the rendered page. –xeno^talk 16:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. So you think that's a good reason for a block? Based on the poorly written restriction that you wrote and which was never adopted by the community? And you are applying this in a spirit of fairness? And you have read the warning at the top of my page? Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

If you do not comply with your editing restrictions, you may be blocked.
I believe you made this same objection (that the restriction was not duly imposed) in the past, and as I said at the time: you will need to make that argument to the community, not simply ignore the restriction altogether. See also: #Another view.
I'm not sure what you mean as regards the warning at the top of your page. –xeno^talk 17:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The warning at the top of the page is from George Orwell, whose literary success clouds his achievements as a philosopher and linguist. It is "A therefore can become a wherefore." The imbroglio of last year was predicated on certain issues, which were dealt with to short order, and weren't really difficult at all. Nonetheless someone felt inclined to create a great fuss about it and we landed in the current situation. Trying to apply the somewhat dubious remedies that were proposed at the time, when the things they were supposed to remedy aren't at issue, is akin to the constabulary apprehending motorist for using their indicators in contravention of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1946). I'm sorry if you can't see this without prompting. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

And I noticed that you avoided most of my questions. Perhaps that's your sense of integrity playing up. Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

I answered your leading questions; I think you just don't like my answers. You are free to use the {{unblock}} template to have another administrator review the block. –xeno^talk 19:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked if you thought it was a good reason for a block. You replied with a technical justification. The implication therefore is that you do not think it was a good reason but blocked anyway "because you could".

I asked if you were applying the block in the spirit of fairness. You did not answer. The implication is you think the block was unfair, but don't wish to admit it.

You can at any point self revert the block.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

It is not a good reason for a block, because the blockee should not be doing those edits in the first place. So the block itself is ungood - it shouldn't have had to happen.
And no, it is not fair that administrators are being put in the unfortunate position of having to block you for making these changes in violation of your editing restriction. Very unfair.
I would be willing to reduce the block to 'time served' if you agree to comply with your editing restrictions until such time as they are no longer listed at WP:RESTRICT. –xeno^talk 19:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice avoidance tactics. And I use the word nice in its old fashioned sense. Also appropriate use of Newspeak. I would say it was doubleplus ungood.

As far as the ERs go I am basically in compliance, I just don't expect (or appreciate) this kind of Kafkaesque enforcement.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

So why is "reflist" still being changed to "Reflist"? –xeno^talk 19:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it is one small improvement I can make while doing other things and know that nobody is going to worry about. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

But there is no consensus that changing "reflist" to "Reflist" Is an improvement, and you have been formally restricted from such edits. –xeno^talk 19:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, and if I was making a significant number edits that just made that change I would expect that it would be drawn to my attention (ER or no ER). But if it is merely an incidental part of another change, then it would not be reasonable to expect anyone to pay much attention to it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

So do you plan to continue changing 'reflist' to 'Reflist', despite there being a formal restriction enjoining you from doing so? What if there is another editor out there who feels that {{Reflist}} should actually be {{reflist}} ? Should they change it back when they happen across the article and make some other non-incidental change (imposing their personal preference)? Or should they simply leave it in the state in which they found the article? –xeno^talk 20:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well of course they would be at perfect liberty, according to the current state of things, to do so. And of course articles are changed in every way imaginable. But I'm sure we could deal with any such contretemps by reasoned debate, were editors ready, willing and able to take part. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

Another view

The restriction has been listed on WP:Editing restrictions since January. If there was not consensus to enact it, you have had 11 months to demonstrate that and get it removed. You were blocked under the same restriction for a week in September, and that block was not lifted early (according to your block log). So the argument that you are not actually under an editing restriction is very hard to make. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said to Fram, I am trying to have a conversation here. However to address your points, simply because I choose not to create drama earlier, when I had a fairly sane arrangement with RD-232 (except when Fram stuck his nose in), does not make the objection invalid - surely as a mathematician you can see that. The apparent intent of the alleged ER was met a long time ago. Only pettifoggers would worry about minor detail, and not see that making a fuss about things that don't matter is akin to The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Wikilove

Slowking4 has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! while i don't normally applaud bot maintainers, i find your contributions invaluable. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Slowking4: †@1₭ 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yum, great! Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

About bird classification

Something to think about while you are blocked. Do you have any thoughts on using data in lists or websites to add details to bird pages with bots or semi-automatic tools. We have been discussing how to update many bird pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Birds#Repetitive_work. I hope to hear from you in about two weeks time. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was just reading the example "Birds of Zanzibar" at the RFC over lists. One I have acquired, prpeared and consumed a little something, I'll take a closer look. Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Good, you can use your talk page when blocked. Yes, it takes a methodical approach to do these tasks. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK pulling the genus author off Wikispecies does not look hard. The mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC, should we be noting monogeneric families? (E.G. Limpkin.) I presume IBC is authoritative enough to cite for this. The IOC spreadsheet is golddust - do you know the licensing of the notes? Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

I will transcribe your question to the WP bird talk page. Please indicate if you would like any further questions copied to there. Snowman (talk)

Is IBC a typo for IOC? What notes do you refer to? Would you agree that there are 903 monotypic bird genera (including monotypic families) listed in the IOC spreadsheet? The IOC taxonomy might be controversial for some birds. The HBW list (here) might be slightly different, because of controversies. Erudite ornithology editors might clean the list manually, if they know where the controversies are. Snowman (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

IBC=International Bird Collection =HBW. The IOC spreadsheet has a notes column - we could quote this if it is freely licensed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

I expect the notes would be copyrighted, but see with the others think on the WP Bird talk page. I used the shorter spreadsheet. A list of monotypic genera from IBC might be useful somewhere. Snowman (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick check on monotypic genrea, I get the same result. Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

That is reassuring. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to get a similar list of monotypic genera according to HBW. It looks like I will not be able to scrape their website for this list; perhaps, I have missed something. Do you have any observations on data scraping ibc.lynxeds.com for a list of monotypic genera? You say; "the mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC". This is for monotypic genera, not monotypic species. It looks difficult to me, their might be other websites that are easier to scrape. The HBW spreadsheet might be available - see discussion on the WP Birds talk page. Snowman (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I made a list from the HBW page last night, I'll post it here later. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

As well as redirect creation, interesting questions arise - is Acanthidops bairdi a typo for Acanthidops bairdii or vice versa? Is the Golden Bulbul two species or one? Etc. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for making the list. I suppose you could park it in a sub-page or remove it leaving it in the page history, if you wanted to. I have copied all 9,918 to a txt file on my PC. Interesting that the IOC list has well over 10,000. For clarity: is this list a list of every bird species on the HBW website? If so, then I could list the monotypic genera separately from it. I have not focused on the queries that you raised as yet. Did you come across a lot of listing problems? Some apparent listing anomalies might be due to taxonomy controversies, and some might be typos and other errors. The HWB list could be quite a lot different from the IOC list, partly because of the different functions of the lists. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

• In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

• WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

• Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

• Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

• Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)