User talk:Rich Farmbrough: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hasteur (talk | contribs)
31,857 edits
Line 341: Line 341:
</div></div>
</div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=605268067 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=605268067 -->

== RfArb Clarification Request ==

Per your post on the Bot Request page, I have asked ArbCom to clarify if the actions you request extend too far into the realm of Automation. Please weigh in at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough]. Thank you. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 20:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:35, 23 April 2014

Note
Email may occasionally go astray due to spam filtering.


Links
FAQ
Talk Archive Index (to May 2012)
follow my blog
This page-

Drama free days
3691


Welcome back

toasting with champagne
Cheers!
Put your feet up in Victorian lounge in Bishzilla's pocket!
  1. Time flies when you're enjoying yourself. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You have just over two-and-a-half hours to extend your block....! Looking forward to seeing Rich Farmbrough without the struck through text! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've seen you around the wiki in various places, like removing that old Erik9bot category. Good luck and I hope there won't be so much trouble down the road! Altamel (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hey, maybe we'll get stuff done around here now. (No, wait, that's why you were banned. Never mind.)
    As a welcome-back gift, I left you hundreds of missing reference sections. Just so you know we care. — kwami (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 365 Drama Free days! Lets hope that number continues to grow, so happy editing! —Sladen (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A year is awfully long in wiki-time. I'm normally logged into the Commons IRC channel, pm me if you ever would like a different viewpoint on something. --Fæ (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Welcome back! ϢereSpielChequers 18:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Will you be at Coventry this Sunday, or shall you be too busy with your Wiki-backlog? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Welcome back! I 've noticed you are already on business. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Best wishes, happy times -- Diannaa (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I forget why you're on my watchlist, or where we met. Ah yes, November 14, 1905. Back when text was normal. Welcome back! I'll take you off the list, but it's nothing personal. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
  13. Nice to see little user back. Welcome in newly refurbished pocket, good place to celebrate. (Cake-eating on Saturdays, beer every day!) bishzilla ROARR!! 17:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  14. Wish you all the best on your return! Thanks, Matty.007 17:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Not before time, after an over-long and punitive block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Cheers! See you at WikiMania 2014.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Finally! Northern Antarctica (₵) 19:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I was stunned to see "Rich Farmbrough" pop up in the edit-history of one the articles on my tiny watch-list. One of Wikipedia's finest editors and a true class-act! An "over-long and punitive block" indeed. Great to see you back to work! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. All Sentiments Dittoed. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 23:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

For all your good wishes! Lets get this show on the road! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have filed a request for enforcement concerning edits you made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. RF 15:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

Hi Rich, I've closed the Arbitration Enforcement request and referred it to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I don't really know the background, but if there's some excuse this isn't a complete overreaction, then the nominator and everybody else who's commented there in support must've forgotten to mention what that is. — lfdder 15:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAKE for all my talk-page stalkers

To all my Wiki-Colleagues - Have some Wiki-Birthday Cake! I shall be sharing my Real LIfe™ Walnut and coffee cake, while I share this virtual cake here.

Please invite your friends, there is plenty to go round. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Redrose64 has eaten a slice of your cake! The cake made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again! --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please

Can you perhaps advise me how to improve my sources script? You probably know I don't have any programming skills and wouldn't know how to define a loop even if my life depended on it. The script has been cobbled together based on an earlier version of my Engvar script that someone else helped me with. However, the "dictionary" in this script, split into three separate subscripts, is very large and involves very heavy processing. I'd like to ask you to help me optimise it so that it doesn't stall in operation as is frequently the case. Explanations in layman's terms of how it works and how it could be improved would be most welcome; ditto for suggestions as to code modifications. Cheers, -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well one thing I notice (not having looked at the sub-scripts yet) is that there is a speed up to be had in rules like
  • (\[\[)/s*Public Broadcast Service\*\|\s*(PBS\]\]) => $1$2
  • (?:\[\[)/s*Public Broadcast Service\*\|\s*(?:PBS\]\]) => [[PBS]]

will be faster, since it won't create (and destroy) the two variables $1 and $2. Over the whole thing this may help. I'll look more later. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

  • If I made greater use of lookaheads instead of the variable registers, like this, would the regexes run more efficiently? -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't say - I don't thinks so, but I am somewhat distracted. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

OK another big thing is that we are doing these reg-exes on the whole document. If instead we extract the citation templates, and process them in a smart way we will get maybe 2-3 orders of magnitude speed up. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Your Arbcom case

Hey Rich hows it going. I just wanted to let you know I commented in your defence on your case. Personally I think they are going to keep gunning for you. The sanction is written so poorly it will be impossible to meet it. They are going to find a reason to ban you I'm afraid. Its only a matter of time. They are targetting all the top editors one at a time. Anyway, the children of Arbcom will probably delete my statement since I was banned so I would quite commenting about the failures of Arbcom and the abusive admins on this site. But I wanted to add it anyway so its on record. Good luck and like I said before your always welcome at Wikia. We may not have as many articles, editors or drama of Wikipedia, but we do have cookies. In fact we have entire Wiki's about cookies.! ake care bro. K u m i o k o (the editor who shall not be named)172.56.3.8 (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and I know who will keep gunning for me, there's not much that can be done about that. The reasonable people who have fallen for the propaganda, might be swayed in time, and there are those who see this for what it is. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Hi, re this it's {{U|Beeblebrox}} not {{U:Beeblebrox}}. I can't fix it because of the rules there. You might like to use {{replyto|Beeblebrox}} though. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, you put {{U|Beebelbrox}} now - "l" and third "e" exchanged. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't I just put {{Zaphod}} ? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Redrose64 -- you could've fix it -- they're bureaucratic, but they're not that bureaucratic. NE Ent 02:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NE Ent: The whole ArbCom thing seems to use the (undeniable) premise that there are two parties in dispute as an excuse to keep the whole process on a confrontational basis. When this thread was first posted, I followed the link - and looked at the rest of the page to see what sort of things might happen. I found a big pink box at the top of WP:AE full of warnings of dire consequences, which left me with the impression of "if you even think about posting here to disagree, you'll be desysopped and banned for life. This is our patch: keep out". ArbCom pages aren't like talk pages - you can't reply by posting into the thread that you're replying to, which makes it difficult to track a "conversation". I have certainly seen people sanctioned for amending somebody else's post; at the top of WP:ARCA the pink box says "Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are [an arb or clerk]". They don't even like you amending your own post, as evidenced by the instruction "this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive". --Redrose64 (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves. The more like dicks arb-com act, the better the chances better things will come....maybe. — lfdder 12:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #105

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 20:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

This survived 2 weeks

heavy vandalism. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this didn't trigger an abuse filter. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
It has something to do with ClueBot unable to check more than x pages per minute. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fairly easy to run an additional process to check for this sort of thing - alas it won't be me running it. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

3 years, marquee and all. I spent years in Canterbury, and I've never even heard of Herne Common before today, so I think it might be excusable. — lfdder 02:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London Gazette index

Rich, I randomly tried a few links from the 1918 index and it looks like the Gazette's move to it's new url and pagination has screwed things up as I got a 100% error rate. For example the 1 January issue url you have in the index is http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/30453/pages/1 this is now https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/30453/page/113 and the first supplement which was http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/30454/supplements/1 is now https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/30454/supplement/225 All in a bit of a pain in the backside. Nthep (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a nice document by Tim Berners-Lee explaining why people shouldn't break the Internet like this. We are used to it, though, on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I am prohibited from fixing anything by means other than "typing in the edit box". I will make an appeal in various places for someone to fix the index. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Help with bot that adds references to articles

Hi! I'm writing a bot task (see User talk:PotatoBot#PotatoBot for Glottolog codes?) that will add a parameter to {{Infobox language}}. Trouble is, this parameter (glotto=) creates a ref, and not all articles have a <references />, {{reflist}} or something equivalent. Is there some bot that could follow after mine, or code that I could use, or some other solution? Your help would be appreciated! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help, but I am currently not allowed to. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Pity. Thanks anyway. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

A motion has been proposed in Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's changed

Re your comments "I did not expect that anyone would take exception to straight-forward editing" -- did you think Fram had retired or something? In any event, since a) your sense of wiki politics isn't the best (assuming that, long term, you still want to continue editing) and b) thus far, there's not much evidence Arbcom '14 is any more reasonable than Arbcom '12, you should just let them have the last word at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee and stop quibbling over the little stuff on the clarification page. NE Ent 02:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is some evidence of '14 being more reasonable. I figured it would take a year to sort out the arb case, but I gave up after a bit. I guess we will make progress in time. They key thing seems to be to only deal with one thing at a time, or the issue gets muddied. Certain arbs (bless them) seem to want to "reform" me, which is fine, if they can establish what that means, apart from "internalising my guilt". All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
It's always read to me like some simply want to site ban you but couldn't get the votes. NE Ent 02:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and that is why it is important to have a dialogue. Presumably they have reasons for wanting that, and only by disposing of the spurious reasons, do we stand a chance of addressing anything else. Of course some people enjoy blocking and ABFing, they should by no means be Administrators,, let alone Arbitrators. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 03:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Note from Kumioko redacted see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARich_Farmbrough&diff=604782136&oldid=604774354 (Sadly the redaction, which is optional, was by an involved editor. i would strongly counsel involved editors against implementing or requesting such procedural steps.)

  • As to editors who prefer to make difficulties for their own ends, the evidence is there for all to see.

  • I don't agree that this is "Worst. Arbcom. Ever." Certainly some people wear their prejudice on their sleeve, but that is probably a good place as any to wear it. Most that I have had contact with, who were not members of 2012, are simply assuming that the 2012 findings were correct, and haven't investigated them. Why would they?

  • The "type in the box" sanction was written in haste and anger, there can be no doubt about it. The complaint at the time, trivial though it was, was dealt with by existing remedies.

  • As to ineptitude vs malice, it is, I think, a capital error to confuse outcomes that are due to mistake, even compounding of many mistakes, with ineptitude. Certainly there are grounds for ascribing malice, ineptitude or both, to certain steps in the process - see the grudging recension of Finding 8 (and its modifying motion) due to "procedural errors". It's a shame that the then committee didn't have the integrity to strike it as factually wrong as was demonstrated, and chose to put a one-sided disclaimer in, but one can't have everything.

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Everything has changed!

In a major reversal Rich has walked away from an article with four identical errors, after only correcting one of them! Talk Page interviewed the well known rapscallion at an address "somewhere in the East Midlands"

<poem>Talk Page: So we understand that you have finally broken your addiction.
Rich: <shuffling> Yes, that's right.
Talk Page: What happened?
Rich: "Well I was just reading Battle of Caporetto order of battle, trying to find out about the seventh infantry division, and putting a red-link in for it, when I noticed the section heading was wrongly capitalised - as were four others on the same page.
 Talk Page: So you corrected it?
Rich: Well I corrected half of it.
Talk Page: Only half?
Rich: I had to go back and fix the second half. I was getting the shakes. You don't know what it's like....
Talk Page: But you walked away form the other three errors?
Rich: Yeah... It was hard, but I did it. Don't want people thinking I'm <spits> automated...
Talk Page: Well, congratulations! That just shows this compulsive urge to "not act like a human" can be overcome! And now, back to the studio...
</poem>

11:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • That seems more like fighting one's anal obsession, or deliberately trying to make a point that is the utter reverse of those who habitually violate that guideline. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply an illustration, diluted 100,000 times of the effect that this absurd situation has. I am demotivated from improving stuff that someone can easily fix with a bot. bare references, cite errors, typos, vandalism, pov errors, copyvios, paid editing. <meh> There's plenty more that needs doing, not necessarily here... All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitration evidence query

You said at AE that this edit is not taken from this document, §35. In that case, where was it taken from? Thanks, AGK [•] 06:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Total registration document for 2013, which is the document lodged with the French authorities, pursuant to French company law. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. However, I can't seem to find that, and its contents are important to a point of fact that arose in the last AE. Could you provide me a link to (or copy of) the document in question? AGK [•] 11:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy on my laptop I believe. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
http://total.com/en/Registration-document-2013 - linked from any of the first three Google hits for "Registration document 2013" Total. It's 2.89Mb pdf, containing significant information about P&E of LPG and LNG, and, for those that have eyes to see, the Realpolitik of various regions. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I have glanced over at the arb pages, I notice a third motion has been proposed. I'm not sure if this has a bearing on your request. I was inclined to wonder, if someone would download and compare a long list from an off-wiki document (and the wrong one at that) in sufficient detail in the first place to identify minuscule differences with the on-wiki list - and then bring them up, whether this could be considered "normal behaviour" and "assuming good faith", let alone displaying it. By the same token I do hope that requesting this source was simply to establish beyond doubt that the sub-par research supporting the fallacious conclusions was absolutely wrong, rather than an ungentlemanly lack of faith in my veracity.
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Histmerge

Could some brave admin histmerge User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 8 to this page, please? The contents of User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 8 should be kept there, by cut and paste as needed. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #106

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough case clarified

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration committee decision regarding Amendment request: Rich Farmbrough

The Arbitration Committee has declined to support an amendment requested by Rich Farmbrough.

Archived request

For the Arbitration Committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon England by Stenton ...

Which edition were you using for that reference? There are three different editions, with three different paginations. And, as a courtesy, could you try to format the references as much like the rest of the citations - which are formatted like "Gransden, Antonia. Historical Writing in England. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 1974. 6" - if you'd included a date, I wouldn't have to ask about which edition was being used. Thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third (posthumous) I believe. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

Great answer

Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Very helpful answer, as I needed that information as well!
///EuroCarGT 20:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

RfArb Clarification Request

Per your post on the Bot Request page, I have asked ArbCom to clarify if the actions you request extend too far into the realm of Automation. Please weigh in at [1]. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&oldid=605508495"