Jump to content

User talk:Rich Farmbrough

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 26 March 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Template:Mirror me

  • 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
This page-

Drama free days
4567


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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]
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)[reply]

Birds summary

Ref: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Birds#Repetitive_work

There are 3 lists:

  • IUCN
  • HBW (IBC)
  • IOC

These can be used to ref montoypic genera.

Moreover the IUCN website has changed and the refs need updating. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
todo

Signpost and hlist

fyi... Alarbus (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

I have a few Ambox and Fix related issues that I'd appreciate help with, if you have time, and if you have no reason to not want to interfere, of course.

I commented on the template loops. The rest I'll have to look at. I did have an alternative method for subst:checking, but it was pretty much obviated by AMALTHEA's self-substituting tricks. Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, I'll look at it right away. I have just had a long look at the way substitution checking works on Ambox and Fix, and am proud to say that I understand precisely how they work. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my before-last question, and have added a sentence to it, to make my intent more clear. Debresser (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, I found the reason for the template loop, and I know what needs to be done to solve it, but don't know how to do that. I wrote there on the Ambox talkpage linked above. Can you have a look at it? Debresser (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, the second and third question are now quite urgent... Debresser (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You took care of the second today, thank you. The third is on Template_talk:Fix#Progress.Debresser (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Article Feedback Tool - things to do

Hey guys! A couple of highly important things to do over the next few weeks:

  • We've opened a Request for Comment on several of the most important aspects of the tool, including who should be able to hide inappropriate comments. It will remain open until 20 January; I encourage everyone with an interest to take part :).
  • A second round of feedback categorisation will take place in a few weeks, so we can properly evaluate which design works the best and keeps all the junk out :P. All volunteers are welcome and desired; there may be foundation swag in it for you!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC) ---[reply]

Coord display parameter errors

I'm seeing a number of instances of {{Coord}} with two |display= parameters. Could your helpful pixie fix these, please? The rules would be:

  • If |display=inline and |display=inline, use |display=inline
  • If |display=title and |display=title, use |display=title
  • If |display=inline and |display=title, use |display=inline,title
  • If |display=inline and |display=inline,title, use |display=inline,title
  • If |display=title and |display=inline,title, use |display=inline,title
  • If |display=inline,title and |display=inline,title, use |display=inline,title

Any values other than "inline", "title" or "inline,title" should already throw an error message.

Note that |display=title,inline is a valid equivalent of |display=inline,title in all of the above.

If you need testcases, some, but not all, of the articles on User:MaxSem/Duplicate_primary have this problem.

Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed these up, where they had that problem. Rich Farmbrough, 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Manually? Thank you, but it's likely to recur, hence the request that your Bot watch for such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using AWB - so I'm good to go again. I need to set up some bot infrastructure to support once-dumply tasks. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Running off MaxSem's list? Not sure he'll be recreating it regularly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, running off the regular data dumps. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

todo

PixieBot cn tags

It appears that your bot is adding a citation needed tag at the end of every sentence that is not already specifically referenced. See [1] Is that your intent? Or is this a manual process with bot assistance?--Hjal (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, nearly gave me myocardial infarction there. {{Cn}} is {{Citation needed}} - just less readable. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

---

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

--

Modern English Biography

In the discussion around the DNB, digitisation, and how money could usefully be spent: I have only just become aware of Frederic Boase and his MEB (see Talk:Frederic Boase/Temp for my new draft, given that the current page has copyvio-blight, but right now the history has facts like he was the brother of DNB author George Clement Boase). Anyway the MEB has a very low profile online, but is PD given that the final volume was 1921. Apparently much was close paraphrase of the DNB, but where it isn't, it grubbed up facts that were otherwise hard to get.

All in all, a worthy candidate for "where next" in the DNB direction. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Removing {{Film tv US}}

Could you give a reason on why you are removing this template from articles? As the creator of template, I thought it was decent television counterpart to {{Film US}}. If you have a problem with the template existing take up in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. You removing it from articles will not stop it from existing. QuasyBoy 00:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs addressing Rich Farmbrough, 05:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

todo

Missing dates of birth

Could your bot add Category:Date of birth missing or Category:Date of birth missing (living people) to articles where the infobox's |birth_date= only has a year, and the article is not in Category:Date of birth unknown, please?

It could also add the relevant "YYYY births" category, at the same time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need doing. Rich Farmbrough, 05:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

todo

Risale-i Nur article

Hello Rich, I saw you added some tags that says the language of the article is like a magazine article. I changed it a bit and removed the tag. I hope it worked out. If you want, you can check and see and give an idea in tha talk page of the article or to me.rinduzahid(talk) 17:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, I don't think I added the tags though. Rich Farmbrough, 18:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

---

Celebrity Rehab

Hi. Regarding your having removed the TMZ citation from the article, and replaced the statement that Michaele Salahi lacked an addition with the somewhat more euphemistic statement that she "did not meet the criteria", I took a closer look at the UPI source from which that latter, amended statement came from, and it also supports the statement that she lacked an addiction. It did indeed relate the statement from the network source that she did not meet the production's criteria, but only because it described what those criteria were beforehand:

The treatment program that 'Celebrity Rehab' documents is intended for individuals with serious substance abuse and addiction issues. Prior to the taping of the current season, producers were advised that Michaele Salahi met the criteria to be treated in this setting," VH1 said in a statement Tuesday. "However, professional assessments spanning from that time to the present, found that she did not meet such criteria.

Thus, there was no reason to remove that original point. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make the changes you think appropriate. I will just point out that the press release is either carefully worded or sloppily worded. It says "met the criteria to be treated in this setting" - this leaves open the possibility that either she had "serious substance abuse and addiction issues" but not ones that could be "treated in this setting" of that she had "substance abuse and addiction issues" of a less "serious" nature - as well as the possibility that she had no such issues. Rich Farmbrough, 03:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

---

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

--

a better citation footnote template

User:CharlesGillingham's, not mine. I think it would be great if you, Gadget850, Thumperward, and Plastikspork all participated and got this going with all nits resolved. Alarbus (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost: 5 March 2012

--

Thanks...

.. for the barnstar! I just wiki-gnome away, usually leaving the Dramahs to other folk, though seem to have got involved in a couple just lately. PamD 17:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC) ---[reply]

Your opinion is needed

Hello Rich,

Sorry to be a nuisance I know you are very busy. If you have time, would you kindly check the following articles (below) to see whether the tags placed on them are still justifiable and if so how to improve them. I have re-edited the articles per the objections raised but the editor who put the tags has not contributed to English Wikipedia as a signed-in editor (going by their contribution history) for over a month. I am very close to the article because I originally created them so another opinion would be immensely appreciated. Thank you.

Regards

Tamsier (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lost editors

I replied on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC) ---[reply]

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Spring has sprung! Stop by the Teahouse for a cup of tea under the cherry blossoms.
  • Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
  • A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
  • Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC) ---[reply]

Re: Thomas Weston (Merchant Adventurers entrepreneur)

Thank you for your information regarding this new article I am creating. I presently have two books on the subject and more to come, but so far I have not made any connection with the two Merchant Adventurers that are in Wikipedia. I will have to continue to research to be certain but it clearly states that he started this particular Merchant Adventurers so I do not think they are connected. We will see and I study further. Anyway, thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most interesting. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

--

What is going on?

The Helpful Pixie Bot is not so helpful at the moment. It is changing all heads "External link" to "External links", even when there is only ONE (1) external link. Stop this bot and let it check the number of external links first. I will revert the whole lot that showed up at my watchlist... Night of the Big Wind talk 11:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand that. On Wikipedia "External links" is always supposed to be plural, just as is "References". This is simply a stylistic standard. See Wikipedia:Standard_appendices#External_links for the appropriate guidance. Rich Farmbrough, 11:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Yep, but when I use "External links" for just one link, there is always someone passing by and changing it into "External link". Night of the Big Wind talk 12:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either point them to the guidance, or don't worry about it. There is nothing so trivial on Wikipedia, from invisible spaces, to capitalisation that someone won't fight to the Wiki-death about. (See the great eight year yoghurt spelling debate.) And there are even people who have no opinion but will oppose a change for the sake of it - and others who do nothing but hang around noticeboards calling for blocks. It's a strange place. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I have seen the big "dash"-battle. Ridiculous. I plain ignore the whole thing. If it is not right, a bot will fix it. But most annoying in it, is that is is mighty unfriendly for the users of Wikipedia, because it hampers search efforts. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - en-dashes and em-dashes in article titles? Or in text? For the former there should be redirects, the latter should be covered by search-engine smarts? Rich Farmbrough, 13:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Night of the Big Wind, I do a lot of editing of MOS:APPENDIX stuff. I just want to confirm Rich's stance that it should be plural as per the link given already. I make many "External link" to "External links" fixes myself. In my experience, these changes are rarely contested so I dispute that. As for the reason why it should be plural even if there's only one link, it's because it works better in an environment where editors change links more often than editors who care about heading formats change the headings. Grammatically the plural is acceptable too. It shouldn't be thought of as introducing a list of links but the name of a section that shall contain any links. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Another one for your collection

Today, trying to execute a regular tool - Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 67108864 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 2097152 bytes) in /home/tparis/public_html/pcount/counter.php on line 223 --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice... Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

--

Category:Empty categories

Category:Empty categories, 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. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a show of good faith, I have asked the Albums Project to consider recommending use of your album category templates and including it into its documentation at WT:ALBUMS. The "empty categories" category should really be expanded to broader topics to be useful, don't you think? As is, it just seems like something for you. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. There are many categories that are set up by template, the dated maintenance ones I go further and have them nominate themselves for speedy deletion. A good candidate might be stuff like "year in" where the very early cats are likely to have only one member, and could become empty, on the other hand they should mostly be nominated for up-merging to decade or century cats. Might be worth a look, anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

---

Data extraction & insertion

Let's say I have the wikicode file "Outline of Stamford" saved on my computer, and I want a program that goes through the outline, finds the first bulleted entry lacking an annotation, pulls the article from Wikipedia for the subject in the entry, extracts the first two sentences of the lead paragraph, then inserts those two sentences as the annotation for that entry, then repeats for the next missing entry, until the all the entries have annotations.

This would be very helpful, as it would save tons of manual cutting and pasting.

How would you go about doing that with perl?

The Transhumanist 22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure what "un-annotated" means but at a guess you could use something like:
while ($page =~ /\n\*\s*\[\[([^\])]*\]\]\s*\*/s ){
   $bulleted = $1;
   $entry =   get ($bulleted);
   $entry =~ s/.*?'''.*?'''//;
   $entry =~ s/([^\.]*.[^\.]*.).*/$1/;
   $page =~ s/(\n\*\s*\[\[$bulleted\]\]\s*)\*/$1 $entry/;
}

here the handwaving is in the assumption that the Wikipeida articles are well-formed, and not exceptional. Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You would need to get the source of the article. You need a module for that, which comes with examples. MediaWiki::API I think is the name. Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Entries in outlines look like this:

  • Architecture – art and science of designing buildings.
  • Crafts – activities and hobbies that are related to making things with one's hands and skill.
  • Drawing – visual art that makes use of any number of drawing instruments to mark a two-dimensional medium. As a verb, it is the act of making marks on a surface so as to create an image, form or shape. As a noun, it is the image produced, or the visual art form itself.
  • Film – also called a movie or motion picture, is a series of still or moving images. It is produced by recording photographic images with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or visual effects. The process of filmmaking has developed into an art form and industry.
  • Painting – the practice of applying paint, pigment, color or other medium[1] to a surface (support base) with a brush or other objects. The term describes both the act and the result of the action.
  • Photography
  • Sculpture –

Concerning list entries, an annotation is a dashed comment.

The entries "Photography" and "Sculpture" above lack annotations. Would the program you wrote above home in on those and add an annotation for each?   The Transhumanist 03:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would pick up the first, fail on the second for two reasons: it would count the endash as an annotation, and there's no following list item. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'm stuck!

(I had to return the programming books to the library).

I don't know what to do to be able to use the while loop you provided above on an outline.

That is, how do you make it read the outline file into the $page variable?

Also, what did you mean by "handwaving"?

Once the annotations are inserted, how do I save the outline back to disk?

When this script becomes fully operational, I expect it will do more than 50% of the work on outlines. Because inserting annotations by hand is tedious as hell, and all of the outlines have entries that need annotations. We're talking tens of thousands of annotation insertions. I can't stress how helpful this tool will be.

How fast do you think it could insert 100 annotations? [

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing outlines with or without annotations

The next improvement I'd like to tackle is to provide some way to toggle an outline's annotations off/on (all at the same time) while viewing the outline in Wikipedia!!!

For example...

The user is browsing Wikipedia and has just arrived at an outline page. It's fully annotated, but he wants to look at the page uncluttered by the annotations.

How could we make it so that all he has to do is press a hot key to make (all of) the annotations disappear?

And then reappear by pressing a different hot key.

What are the possible approaches to implementing this?

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 23:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well, the two that spring to mind are using the collapse functionality - navboxes can be set to collapse if there is more than one of them, so presumably this can be brought under control using the same technology (I assume CSS), or java-script. The Javascript code would need to be installed as default, whereas css an be soemwhat standalone, I think, although the preference is for having it all centrally stored. Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
It sounds like a javascript might be the best approach. Though it would be nice to have the functionality built-in on the browser level (via add-on). Do you know any add-on programmers? The Transhumanist 23:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't that I know of. And I have to disagree, add-ins are great but not for something you wan to be standard WP functionality. However the two tasks become very similar if you use Scriptish. Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

BTW, I'm stuck on the thread preceding this one (extract/insert annotations). I posted a bunch of new questions up there for you (I mention them here just in case you missed them). The Transhumanist 23:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC) ---[reply]

Helpful Pixie Bot editing markup comments

At Outward postcode list, User:Helpful Pixie Bot recently added a maintenance template date ("Dated {{Afd-merge to}}. (Build J/)"). But the template was commented-out and so not part of the operative wikitext. While harmless in this case, you might want to consider whether editing <!-- --> markup comments could produce unintended results elsewhere, in which case comments should probably be excluded from bot parsing. — Richardguk (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an issue which has exercised my mind. Currently the benefit from doing a full parse is slight to none, although I do use hacky "strip markers" to some extent. In the particular case of commented out templates (and much other content) I believe that dating them is appropriate as well as harmless. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

---

Wraps infobox

You might find {{Wraps infobox}} useful. It currently adds a category; we could make that switchable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of what? Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

---

Adding hyphens to ISBNs

Hi Rich, I see two significant problems with adding the hyphens to ISBNs at this time:

  • It makes it more difficult to search for the ISBNs on the Wikipedia, either with the Wikipedia search engine or other web search engines, e.g. Google or Yahoo
  • When the ISBNs wrap at the hyphens, it makes them more difficult to read and more difficult to select and copy

I think we should focus on solving these two problems before converting all ISBNs on the Wikipedia to the hyphenated forms. I made a couple of suggestions for how we might be able to solve these problems at Wikipedia talk:ISBN, but you did not respond to these ideas, so I wonder whether you believe they are of no importance. I had some discussion with User:Michael Bednarek about how we might try to implement a workaround, so that hyphens could be added without creating the above two drawbacks. We agreed that the best approach would be to get the Wikisoftware modified so that the hyphenated ISBN is formatted as nowrap text in the page source code, and the unhyphenated ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 are automatically added as hidden text, which then serve as targets of search engines. I saved our discussion here. If you have a moment, would you please take a look at it. With your expertise and help, maybe we could get these problems solved and then proceed with making the encyclopedia consistent with the original ISBN hyphenation standard (which, as I know you are aware, has not been generally adopted on the web). --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN's don't wrap at the hyphens that I can see (I did some testing on that). I did read your comments on the possibility of changing the Wikimedia software, the way to resolve these would be to raise a request at Bugzilla. Requests at Bugzilla have mixed fortunes, but this might be successful, since it self-contained and previous requests to tweak the behaviour have worked. I also have been working on some possible pro-tem fixes the search issue, but I do wonder whether this is not actually a problem for the search engine operators. Please bear in mind that Google seems to de-rank Wikipedia for ISBN searches regardless, and promotes book-specific sites. Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The wrapping may be browser dependent. I just checked, and I definitely still see it in my browser. I use Safari on and Apple Mac. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be surprised if what you are saying about Google deranking Wikipedia vs book sellers is correct, as this would make sense from their point of view. But the searches do still turn up the pages, for instance, when one uses Google advanced search to search only the Wikipedia. (Example searches are part of the discussion Michael and I had.) If we did this, we could add such a search to the page Special:Booksources, e.g., "Find articles which cite this ISBN at Wikipedia." I think we need to work up a detailed proposal that a programmer can use to easily create the code, showing the algorithms needed to calculate and interconvert the ISBNs and also examples of what the final page code should look like. This is where I am hoping you can really help us out. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created an example of how I think it might work [2]. If you have interest in working on this, could we continue our discussion there and work together on a draft proposal at User:Robert.Allen/Draft? --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comments. In case you did not see it, I am trying to write the proposal at User:Robert.Allen/Draft. I would appreciate if you would look it over to check for errors or misunderstandings on my part, and would appreciate any suggestions. Feel free to make changes that you think would improve it. Thanks, --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rich, I tried to modify the proposal to include the alternative hyphenated ISBN as a hidden target. This is definitely an improvement. Thanks for the suggestion. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: regarding your latest comment about code, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Another possible problem I noticed, WP:ISBN allows for editors to add formats such as: ISBN 978-1413304541. Perhaps we need to specify the number of hyphens (or spaces) to expect in the ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. Should we then recommend that these nonstandard formats be automatically converted to the unhyphenated form until a bot can add the proper hyphenation? --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it best to keep it simple. The software should assume that the version on the page is correctly hyphenated, since the harm from doing so is minimal (adding a spurious search hyphenation for a relatively short period of time). Rich Farmbrough, 10:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      • Is the draft to the point yet where we can post a notice linking to it in an appropriate forum, like: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or WP:BUGZILLA/bugzilla? (Or should we post the entire draft?) If so, which forum? (Also, as an aside, I'm unsure what you mean about adding code, since I'm not very code savvy. From my point of view, the only code that seems like it would be tricky is calculating the remainder. But you mention some parsing code, whatever that is. I'm guessing maybe it is the code that determines the extent of ISBN-10 or ISBN-13 and distinguishes it from the following text.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should think that is a good idea (VP(T)). The php module I referred to does the bit of finding that it is an ISBN and wrapping it in tags - it would have to do the rest we want too. The only thing I would be cautious about right now is the wrap, since I am pretty sure the current class is already no-wrap anyway, at least my attempts to break an ISBN at the dash, on a line break have failed. Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think it may be browser dependent. On the page Samson and Delilah (opera). I'm not seeing wrapping in Firefox, but I do see it in Safari. Here's the source code from Firefox:

  • <a href="/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-19-518954-4" title="Special:BookSources/978-0-19-518954-4">978-0-19-518954-4</a><span class="printonly">

Here it is from Safari:

  • <a href="/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a> <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-19-518954-4" title="Special:BookSources/978-0-19-518954-4">978-0-19-518954-4</a><span class="printonly">

It looks identical to me, but behaves differently in the two browsers. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the example ISBN above uses Template:Cite book, so the source code is a bit different than when the template is not used, but that actually makes no difference to Safari and Firefox. The only way I have found to get Safari to act like Firefox is for example to put ISBN 978-0-19-518954-4 into {{Nowrap|ISBN 978-0-19-518954-4}} giving ISBN 978-0-19-518954-4, which wraps the code with <span class="nowrap">...</span>. However, the question also arises whether templates will hinder the Wikisoftware solution we are proposing, since this template seems to create the page source code for the ISBN link differently from how the Wikisoftware formats it. I put some ideas here --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could do the whole thing with templates, but it's better to let the wikimagic prevail, since it (should be) more efficient. So we should just note that Safari allows the ISBN to break, maybe this is a thing Safari is written to do, or maybe it's a bug or dis-feature - and suggest that no-wrap be added to the css. I guess the devs will be fairly pro putting more stuff in css to deal with Safari, there deos not seem to be any concern for bloating the css and java (or the html come to that) - indeed this proposal is an html expander in a small way. Rich Farmbrough, 23:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, adding nowrap is not a big deal and shouldn't have any deleterious effect. I know you are very busy, but I left more discussion on the template problem for you here. I think maybe that initially we should just ignore the problem, and you are correct, we should focus on Wikimagic exclusively. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

WP:ANI discussion about ISBNs and Helpful Pixie Bot

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Bot continues task despite objections and without apparent consensus to support it. Fram (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. A mostly helpful bot. In that talk, User:Diannaa pointed out a helpful fix (and my reply)

Here the bot changed an invalid 11 digit ISBN to drop the dashes, leaving a still invalid ISBN. Diannaa found the right one: ISBN 86-84433-00-9 and noted that there are about 3000 instances of the wrong ones in various Balkan village articles. I suggested that the bot could be tweaked to know about this ISBN and actively fix them up. This could become a feature that could be re-used to fix other similarly widely propagated bad ISBNs. Alarbus (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I spent some time looking for that ISBN, I believe the work is in a number of volumes. Last time we went after invalid ISBNs in a big way we made quite a project of it, there was a birding book that had been mis-ISBNed on many many pages. I'll fix up these today. Rich Farmbrough, 09:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Sounds like lots could happen here. The bot should be able to collect a log of bad ISBNs that could be sorted for priority. Diannaa's a librarian, so I expect she's pretty good at finding these things. fyi, I read that draft proposal, and think it too much. Does anyone really know Google parses our pages? This should be run by Andy to see if there's a proper microformat for this; off hand I'd say it quite likely. 53 seconds later: http://microformats.org/wiki/isbn — Andy's name is on that page. Alarbus (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is my concern with the whole micro-formats initiative, it seems to be about 5 or 6 people, and a solution in search of a problem. Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It's obvious that few people see a problem with this, and most people find it a good thing, so I'll close the ANI discussion and let you continue with this. At least (trying to give a positive twist to an unnecessary ANI section) now you have a more recent discussion showing support for this task. Fram (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rich. Thanks for fixing all those busted ISBNs in the Balkan articles. A Good Thing. -- Dianna (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello there,

How on earth to you find these things, like the correct formatting of isbn numbers (where hypens go)? What brings you to them? Do you have a special role in WP? Do you respond to some kind of alert system? What does pixiebot mean when your name is Rich? Please let me know--I'm fascinated! Thanks for taking the time,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the database behind the site is periodically "dumped" into xml files, which can be downloaded. These can be scanned to find particular errors without having to hit every page on Wikipedia. Helpful Pixie Bot is a an automated system for doing a number of small tasks, (almost) all such systems are meant to be run on "bot accounts" rather than "human accounts" - see WP:BOTS for more information.
I don't know about a special role (though I am an admin), I simply prefer (like most Wikipedians) to fix something rather than leave it broken, and happen to have skills (like most bot-masters) to fix some things across the encyclopaedia.
Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

---

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: . *

Edits by:

  1. CBM at 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
  2. CBM at 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at 03:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by CBM at 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 11:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
---

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 47

Template: . *

Edits by:

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by [[User:|User:]] at 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Bottom edit was by CBM at 00:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 00:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--

Template:WikiProject category

About this template. It currently categorizes the category into category:x-importance articles, into category:project articles by importance and into category:project articles by quality and importance

For example: see Category:B-Class Education in India articles of Top-importance

Ideally I do not see why it needs to be a subcategory of anything except Category:Education in India articles by quality and importance (x-articles by quality and importance), Category:B-Class Education in India articles(y-class x articles) and Category:Top-importance Education in India articles(z-importance x-articles). I see that the template is used at a lot of places, and hence I'm a little wary about editing it. Maybe you should check how the other projects categorise and fix it accordingly. Thanks and regards.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did. If you want to change the way it works in "Education in India" categories then you could simply susbt: the template and tweak it. Or change the template, I have no strong opinion on the article assessment sub-category structure (in fact part of me says the whole wiki-project assesment edifice is just to keep certain people out of trouble, at which is it failing ). Good luck whichever route you take. Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

  1. Rich Farmbrough at 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
  2. Rich Farmbrough at 19:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
  3. Rich Farmbrough at 19:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
  4. Headbomb at 21:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
  5. Rich Farmbrough at 22:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
  6. Headbomb at 23:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
  7. CBM at 23:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
  8. Headbomb at 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
  9. CBM at 23:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
  10. Rich Farmbrough at 01:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
  11. CBM at 01:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
  12. Headbomb at 01:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
  13. Headbomb at 01:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
  14. CBM at 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
  15. Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 01:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 49

Template: . *

Edits by:

  1. Femto Bot at 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Never edited by BAG.
Last edit by me at .
Last edit by anyone was by Femto Bot at 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 03:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--

Helpful Pixie Bot error

Most of this edit is fine, but the bot proceeded to "fix" something in an HTML comment. Just a heads up. - Denimadept (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 04:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

--

User script listing cleanup project

I'm leaving this message for known script authors, recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, and those who've shown interest in user scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion (talk) 04:32, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

  1. Kwamikagami at 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 05:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fifteenth Lok Sabha summary

Template:Fifteenth Lok Sabha summary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chandan Guha (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

  1. CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
  2. CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
  3. CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by CBM at 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 20:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restrictions and Pixie Bot

Hello RF, in looking through some things for the current BRFA, I noticed that Pixie Bot appears to be conducting cosmetic changes alongside its approved tasks. While this is permitted under WP:COSMETICBOT, it is not under your editing restriction regarding such changes. BAG does not explicitly approve such actions, only the task for which the bot is specifically programmed. Some examples I noted include:

  • [3] [4] [5] - whitespace changes at the end of a newline, not part of AWB's default genfixes
  • [6] [7] [8] - capitalizing the first letter of a transcluded template, where the transclusion itself was not changed
  • [9] - Modifying text within a comment (actually a sub-case of the above bullet)

These edits, and others like them, of which there are many, violate your editing restrictions as they do not affect the appearance of the article. Would you mind taking Pixie Bot offline temporarily until it can be reconfigured to avoid such actions, or request that BAG specifically permit these changes to be executed? Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, I noticed this when I saw these sorts of changes occurring with your main account's edits (example) - could you avoid making these changes manually as well? Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like CBM is getting his way? I really think experienced editor should not enable CBM's games.
However, even if we accept the "edit restriction" (which was unilaterally imposed with no consensus bye User:RD232) the changes listed above have all been accepted by the person who wrote it, and therefore should be considered legitimate.
A healthy dose of common sense is what is needed here. I am currently busy with some significant tasks, we can leave the trivia to get fixed by scripts and bots or we can have a massive bust up about it. I prefer to leave it to the computers to take care of and focus on the more complex matters.
Rich Farmbrough, 22:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I'm asking you this of my own volition - no other editor put me up to this, and you violating your community-placed editing restrictions is a serious concern in any event. I am doing this out of good faith and ask that you would respect that.
I don't follow what you're saying in the second paragraph - the changes have been accepted? By who? Did BAG or the community give you clearance to make those cosmetic changes, as stipulated by your restriction?
I agree that common sense should hold sway here, which is why I'm asking you here first rather than making a big stink of the issue. However, the will of the community should also hold sway, and that will is that you should not be executing these changes under any account. Now again, would you please disable PixieBot and your current tasks temporarily until you can either set them to not make such changes, or attain approval to do so? Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sure, but did you read the BRFA, and CBM'scomments and think "hmm what's going on here, I'll check a few edits" or did you read the description and spontaneously go and check some edits? That is what "For the record" and "I'd just like to note" mean. They are equivalent of "Hey guys - look what this cad and bounder is doing? You gonna stand by and let that happen? Sic him!" Wording them as "For the record" and "As a matter of note" is why this type of behaviour is known as passive-agressive. It doesn't wash with me and it shouldn't with you either.
So on, briefly, to your points. This is not a community-placed editing restriction. It was placed by one admin in the middle of a discussion in which I had both supporters and detractors, and where even those who said they had a problem did not by any means endorse the ER. The editor in question simply declared "I'm going to sever this Gordian knot" (perhaps he would not have done so if he had known the line This Gordian knot is quickly scissorable!// Go, make everybody miserable!). There was no consensus, and discussion such as it was, was ongoing.
Of course I believe you are doing this in good faith, why wouldn't you be? It doesn't mean that the information you have been given is correct, though.
In terms of the actual changes, it has been accepted since day 1 by person that "imposed" the "ER" that it is perfectly fine to replace the template name if the bot is dating it. A lot of details were hammered out (rather pointlessly) between him and me, with the occasional pointed intervention of the haters.
Just as a measure of the absurdity of the whole scenario, part of the "ER" is that the bot is allowed to make the template replacements done by AWB - why is this absurd? Because the template replacements done by AWB are from a list that I created from the template replacements SmackBot (as it was then) made.
So the bottom line is, firstly no harm is being done, secondly a lot of good is being done, thirdly pandering directly or indirectly to those who believe rules are more important than the project is a bad thing - it only encourages them.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
(Restoring your old talk page as I post this, it's rather confusing to be confronted with a wall of red links when I expect to be able to pull up a conversation I'm involved in)
I'm going to ignore most of what you've said as you're attempting to deflect the problem away from your actions and towards other people. I will instead focus on a few points I see as particularly problematic.
This is a community restriction. It was discussed at AN, and I don't see that there was any particular opposition to it; a number of editors suggested some changes to the restriction as worded, but later comments clarified those concerns. There was a consensus to apply that restriction to you.
Technically this is a community restriction, and therefore I'm not sure Rd232 (even as the person closing the discussion) really has standing to grant such an exemption given the way the restriction is worded, but if he said that changes of the form {{templatename|[...]}} → {{Templatename|[...]}} were acceptable, then I'll back off on that point. I'll leave Rd232 a note so he can chime in here if he's able; in the meantime, a link to those discussions would be very helpful. However, that doesn't address the other two points I raised, that of your bots and scripts changing whitespace and text within comments. These changes are NOT done by AWB by default, and thus violate your restriction.
I don't see that a lot of good is being done here. These changes clutter the diffs your bots leave behind, and are not supported by consensus nor BAG approval. You are under a restriction to not make these changes, and if you are unwilling to abide by that restriction I do intend to enforce it. Please stop these changes now, or I will issue a block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I will update the page when a new version is created. Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate that. Again, though, if you could disable the bot in the meantime...? Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't replied and User:Helpful Pixie Bot is still running, so I've blocked it until you can make assurances that it will not continue to violate your editing restrictions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<Shakes head> I kinda rely on people to be rational, especially administrators. Foolish of me I suppose. Thansk for screwing things up. Build 640 has been rushed to production. Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
And this build won't make any edits that are purely cosmetic? Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No build of HPB has ever done that except once as a result of an edit conflict that was affected by a bug, that would also never have happened if people weren't morons. Rich Farmbrough, 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, I meant won't make any changes that are cosmetic? Such as the issues I noted above? Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It addresses the trailing space issue, which is currently polluting approximately 22 million lines on en:Wikipedia, bloating the code base by over .1 %, causing wasted power and time on every page edit, adding megabytes to every copy of every data-base dump, slowing every analysis and scan. That seems wuite enough damage. Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Then I will unblock your bot, although I am sorely tempted to block you for being so astonishingly uncivil about this. I've made a very strong effort to remain reasonable, yet at every turn you've been rude, sarcastic, and/or uncooperative. That is NOT how bot operators are supposed to respond to concerns about their bots, and certainly not how an administrator should be responding to good-faith concerns about their own conduct. The only reason I've held my temper this long is because I hoped - thankfully not in vain - that this could be dealt with here rather than ANI or RFAR. Please clean up your conduct soon, or this may end up there anyway. Good day, sir. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm going to ignore most of what you said" that is the rude and uncivil part. I understand that you fell for CBM's games, and that you probably either don't want to admit it or don't believe it yourself, but telling it like it is is not uncivil. Blocking the bot while I was coding is uncivil. Making judgements on things you are not familiar with, without taking the time to understand them is uncivil. making threats is uncivil. But I let that stuff wash over me. Wehn you then turn around and call me uncivil, it's getting a little rich. Rich Farmbrough, 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much

Thank you very much by your unselfish cooperation in Article "Biodiversity of New Caledonia". Muchas gracias por tu colaboración desinteresada en el articulo "Biodiversidad de Nueva Caledonia". 85.251.99.49 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

"Retracted paper"?

Hi. I see that your edit summary here states "tag retracted paper". May I ask what you mean by a "retracted paper"? I suspect that it is not the meaning used by the publishing houses. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a paper where there is a published retraction. If you follow the pub-med link and select "publicaiton type" at the bottom it will say "retracted publication". There were 138 pages which cited retracted publications by PMID as of 7th March 2012, three have had the cites removed, 134 have been tagged and one (retraction) has been left alone for now. Full details on WikiProject Medicine talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
You seem to be playing around with your talk page text. Anyway, the reference that you edited doesn't have a PubMed link. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, search the author, you will see the pmid link in the references. Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

  1. Kwamikagami at 04:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
  2. Kwamikagami at 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 04:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48

Template: . *

Edits by:

  1. Kwamikagami at 05:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Headbomb at 21:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by me at 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC).
Last edit by anyone was by Kwamikagami at 05:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Bottom edit was by Kwamikagami at 05:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 05:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Merriam-Webster Online
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&oldid=483967545"