User:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Mega 0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


From June 2004 - December 2007[edit]


User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2004 June

The Belgrave Line[edit]

Thanks heaps for the list of stations, and especially for making a start upon them.

But I think it duplicates information on the stations list proper.

It also only shares track after Ringwood, after you change trains to Ringwood, then you go on the Lilydale line.

Did you see Alamein line (the link)? That's pretty much the standard around here. EuropracBHIT 07:39, 2 July 2004 (UTC).

Yep, the Alamein line page is good.

I have to say I'm not knowledgeable about Melbourne, merely trying to create stubs with some value, working off the most needed stub list.

Perhaps best to cut and paste the list of sttions from the staion list?

Alternatively combining the articles once they get tho the level of the Alamein line into a Melbourne Train Lines article, with the appropriate re-directs.

I'm sure there will be errors even in such a simple stub (by the way I mistyped references on Lilydale page as well :).

I see you are invlved in the "To the northwest" project as wel :-) Rich Farmbrough 10:32, 2 July 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rich, welcome to Wikipedia. I saw on your user page that you are a generalist, and that you want to write about GCHQ and maths stuff... are you a real life spy? (If I remember rightly "generalist" is the MI5/6 term for a spy... maybe it is at GCHQ too?) Pcb21| Pete 00:46, 3 July 2004 (UTC)

To East etc.[edit]

I'm totally baffled by the pages To West, To East, etc. which are currently listed on Votes for Deletion. Before I cast my own vote, I'd like to know why you created the pages and what they're for. It doesn't appear that any pages actually link to them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:10, 16 August 2004 (UTC)


Hi, and another belated welcome to you. If no one has pointed it out to you already, check out the useful info at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:41, 17 August 2004 (UTC)


Saw the edit on Brent..maybe it needs to be clearer. The Brent oilfield is of course named after the crude, but the crude is named after the goose (many of the Nth Sea fields are named after birds, eg Fulmar, Auk, Cormorant etc --GPoss 10:05, 19 August 2004 (UTC)

Now much better, thanks --GPoss 09:33, 24 August 2004 (UTC)

Curry's paradox[edit]

Hello. The reason your link to Curry's paradox did not work was your capitalization of the letter P. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Michael Hardy 23:19, 29 August 2004 (UTC)


IN case anyone is wondering

(for) returns 33 hits whereas (of) returns 7074.

sometime around 12:00, 29 August 2004 (UTC)

Edit attribution[edit]

Hi Rich. Edits from have now been reattributed to you. Regards Kate Turner | Talk 02:14, 4 September 2004 (UTC)


Hi! I was thinking about an entry for Gordon Welchman, and stumbled across your conversation with User talk:Pcb21; I've just finished going through The Hut Six Story — perhaps we could knock up a page on him? If you're interested in cryptography topics (even from a generalist perspective!), you might find the Cryptography WikiProject of interest, and I'd welcome any review of Enigma machine, which I've been working on a little recently. — Matt 17:57, 6 September 2004 (UTC)

Arda vs Middle-earth.[edit]

Rich, I'm putting this here, so that you don't change more articles about Arda/Middle-earth as the name for Tolkien's universe... When we're talking about J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth universe, we're referring to the *fictional* universe he created, where "Middle-earth" is one of the most popular signifiers for it because most of the stories take place in there. If we were to use "Arda" by your argument, that would still be inaccurate since the entirety of the universe created by Iluvatar is "Ea" -- and infact even *that* would be inaccurate since Ea doesn't include the Timeless Halls where Iluvatar dwells.

In short -- yeah the universe described in J.R.R. Tolkien's books is called Ea, and the planet Arda, and only a continent is called "Middle-earth". But the phrase "Universe of Middle-earth" is just a signifier like "Universe of Battlestar Galactica" or "Universe of Babylon 5" We don't mean that the whole fictional universe is physically contained in those locations bearing that name. Aris Katsaris 23:56, 18 September 2004 (UTC)


Hi! Did you take this photo yourself? Image:StoneFigureonTrinityBridgeCrowland1.JPG. If so, could you please indicate the license and copyright details on the image description page. If it is GFDL, make a note of that by placing {{GFDL}} in the description. — David Remahl 11:58, 20 September 2004 (UTC)

Thnaks for your comment. The picture was by me (as I noted within seconds of uploading). Funnily enough, alhtough I inteded to put a version of that pic up anyway, I was doing it now to confirm the process, in order to help with "tagging" of pix. (Which I had not fully understood, so it was a worthwhile exercise!) Can you point me to the list of tags for licenseing pix? Rgds Rich Farmbrough 12:20, 20 September 2004 (UTC)
Cool. Here is a list of the available image licensing tags: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. — David Remahl 12:25, 20 September 2004 (UTC)


Eek! Could you slow down, or mark as minor, the image tagging? Recent Changes is getting swamped. —No-One Jones (m) 20:31, 20 September 2004 (UTC)

Changed my preferences to minor Rich Farmbrough some time 20 September 2004 (UTC).


...for all the great maps! BCorr|Брайен 15:20, 20 September 2004 (UTC)

Not my maps: "I wish!". Simply tagged all 3094+ as GFDL. Rich Farmbrough 15:44, 23 September 2004 (UTC)


... also, you really do need to check your links. You wrote [[graph]], and that turns out to be a disambiguation page. What you needed was [[graph (mathematics)|graph]]. Similarly, some mathematicians writing on Wikipedia about the mathematician Niels Henrik Abel have linked to Abel, but that page is (of course!) about the son of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis who was killed by his brother Cain. So always check your links. Michael Hardy 00:54, 31 August 2004 (UTC)

Mmmm so there was an earlier Abel, I might have made the same mistake. So now which one did invent the commutative law for groups? Billlion 14:42, 24 September 2004 (UTC)

Prophecy and stuff[edit]

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy[edit]

(text copied from Talk:Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy)

I have looked briefly at some of these items. Most of those cases the "prophet" would be considered (at the time) a heretic, rather than a member of a mainstream church. I think a little more disclaimer is needed at the top, or a lot of deleteing. :) Also refs to the actual words of the "prophets", where possible. Rich Farmbrough 20:01, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that these people were heretics at the time and did not necessarily represent the enitre church. If we delete the "heretical" ones we might end up with only four (Armstrong, Miller, Russell and Jo Smith). I'm happy if you want to write a short disclaimer. One Salient Oversight 22:26, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

William M. Branham[edit]

(copied from Talk:William M. Branham)

I found

"that by 1977 all denominations would be consumed by the World Council of Churches under the control   
of the Roman Catholics, that the rapture would take place, and that the world would be destroyed."  
(Burgess and McGee, Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 96)

However this is quite a jump from what the article pages says! It's also the only _source_ I could find. The transcripts of (at least some of) his sermons are on-line, the one I found ( mentions WCC in a negative biblical context but that's about it (although I didn't read the whole thing).

I think we need a more authoritative reference to say that he made the statement, and that he claimed it was divinely inspired prophecy.

I have removed this text until we have an authority.

At least one of his prophecies - that all Christian denominations would be controlled by the 
World Council of Churches by 1977 - 
has not come  to fruition.[1]

Rich Farmbrough 19:15, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rick. Just a query about your changing the William M. Branham article with regards to the prophecy that was not fulfilled. If you go to Google and type in "Branham" + "1977" +"False" you will find a large amount of pages. Considering this large amount of evidence I think it is important to include the phrase in the article. Moreover I am a little concerned that you chose to remove that part of the article when the rest of the article is so very biased and POV towards Branham.

So pretend you're me. You stumble upon the William M. Branham article and discover that the person who wrote it was obviously a big fan of Branham. However there is a cleanup notice on the page and you decide to put it on your long-term "to do" list in your mind. Then in the process of researching other articles, you discover some websites that state that Branham made a prediction that did not come true. Since you have already read a fiercely pro-Branham website that made it clear that Branham believed he was the prophet Elijah, you put two and two together and decide that he must have made a "false prophecy". You include this in one short sentence in the Branham article

Then someone comes along and removes that small sentence with the claim that it can't be verified objectively, while leaving the incredibly POV article untouched. Then you begin to wonder whether that person is a supporter of Branham who does not wish to have anything negative about him written in the article.

Of course I am not making any judgement either way. That's why I'm talking to you. But can you understand my unease at this point? One Salient Oversight 23:07, 27 September 2004 (UTC) Should be of enormous help to our discussion here.

Also, how about this:

Branham proclaimed himself the angel of Revelation 3:14 and 10:7 and prophesied that by 1977 all denominations would be consumed by the World Council of Churches under the control of the Roman Catholics, that the Rapture would take place, and that the world would be destroyed. He died in 1965, but many of his followers expected him to be resurrected, some believing him to be God, others believing him to be virgin-born.
Branham's influence has continued in many churches where his prophecies are considered to be divinely inspired. His teaching on the power of the spoken word has been a characteristic of later revivalists. Kenneth Hagin identifies Branham as a prophet.
Burgess and McGee, editors, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. p.96

This is from

Until either the above quote is proven to not exist, or until Burgess and McGee can be proven wrong, the quote should stand in the Branham article methinks. One Salient Oversight 23:29, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

And more:

There is a reference in each of these sermon transcripts to the year 1977 where he predicts something. In the last transcript he states And at 1906 the Laodicean church age set in, and I don't know when it'll end, but I predict it'll be done by 1977. I predict, not the Lord told me, but I predict it according to a vision that was showed me some years ago, that five of those things has (out of the seven)--has already taken place about.... That bit where he says "not the Lord told me" can't really be made to say anything. In the other three transcripts he makes it pretty clear that he was predicting something. One Salient Oversight 23:46, 27 September 2004 (UTC)

Branham etc.[edit]

Yes, I understand how it seemed. It looks like I have stumbled into a controversy (outside Wikipedia) here. I certainly don't think Branham was anything special, I arrived there from the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy page. The quote from Burgess and McGee (which both you and I found) seemed rather to overshadow the WCC thing. The sermon I looked at (and referenced), if anything contradicted it. "Gather the tares into bundles - Lutherian, baptist... are in the WCC" to paraphrase. Which would imply that that was one bundle of several. Cursory (I admit) research seemed to indicate that the "1977" element of his predictions was personal, not prophetic. To err is human (even if Brnham did it (in terms of facts) rather more than most). The references you gave seem to support this.

I have made some more edits to the Branham page, perhaps you could glance at them (some may underestimate his import).

Then I suggest re-inserting the "1977" under the "anomolies" section, as a prediction rather than a prophecy.

I see you are knowledgeable about the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements, can you confirm whether he was a major influence on the three movements mentioned in the article?

Is it possible to identify his seven prophecies and put them in the article? I find the "egg shaped car" rather amusing, but I couldn't (easily) find a definitive list of the prophecies. Rgds Rich Farmbrough 08:58, 28 September 2004 (UTC)

Branham was instrumental in getting the Latter Rain Movement going in the 50s and 60s. It was so strange that the Assemblies of God declared it a heresy. Branham's teachings have been modified somewhat but are still being felt in the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches through things like Manifest Sons of God and Kingdom Now theology - the latter I believe has some major impact on how Christians in the US will vote at the next presidential election.
Thanks for dispelling any concerns I have. I'm fairly happy with the changes you are suggesting.
As far as his seven prophecies - I admit that I don't know a huge amount about the guy except some of the major stuff (including his denial of the Trinity). I suggest you search that South African website with a Google advanced search, looking for "seven prophecies" on that site.
Egg shaped car? I have no idea what this has to do with Branham but if it was received during one of his visions then I am not surprised. It might even make a good entry on the Timeline page if it is a prophecy. One Salient Oversight 10:06, 28 September 2004 (UTC)



You asked if my pics released under GNU are {{GFDL]], and the answer is yes they are, so if you would like to retag them, I'd be much endebted. Thanks

Peregrine981 03:36, 28 September 2004 (UTC)

UK/United Kingdom[edit]

I see that you keep changing "UK" to "United Kingdom". Is this a standard laid down in the MoS, or just your arbitrary personal decision? -- Jmabel 18:43, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

You've done this on a few pages I wrote or did the edit that put in UK. In each and every case, UK scans a lot better than United Kingdom. I'm chaning them to [[United Kingdom|UK]], as it makes more sense. I'd appreciate if you did this where it scans better. Thanks. Kiand 19:24, 7 October 2004 (UTC)
[[UK]] is a disambiguation page. As Kiand points out [[United Kingdom|UK]] can look better than [[United Kingdom]] in some circumstances, indeed some changes were to that. Please feel free to change any that you wish to what you think looks best. I have disambiguated all references to UK (and they were all to United Kingdom:). Now back to [[British]]... Rich Farmbrough 22:46, 7 October 2004 (UTC)
I'm with Kiand on this. And why on earth is UK a disambiguation page? It almost always has one meaning. I'd think that should be a redirect to United Kingdom and the disambiguation page should be UK (disambiguation). Oh, well. -- Jmabel 22:53, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, perhaps I should have been bolder and made the redirect. Rich Farmbrough 23:04, 7 October 2004 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the redirect; this also concurs with the opinions on Talk:Uk. --Michael Snow 06:03, 8 October 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Michael. Rich Farmbrough 08:40, 8 October 2004 (UTC)

Please check links[edit]

On Vickers Vimy you changed a link [[British]] to [[UK|British]]. [[UK]] is in fact a disambiguation page, so your change did not improve the article. You should instead have made your link something like [[United Kingdom|British]]. Please check a link goes to where you think it does. Thanks, —Morven 20:16, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

My mistake. All being fixed now. Rich Farmbrough 15:32, 5 October 2004 (UTC)
UK and British are not the same thing. At all. The United Kingdom is the entire Union, Britain is the island. For example, Northern Ireland *is* in the UK but is *not* in Britain. Might be advisable to leave links like that as-is Kiand 19:25, 7 October 2004 (UTC)
British itself is a diasmbiguation page.Rich Farmbrough 12:27, 8 October 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:


Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 13:54, 9 December 2004 (UTC)

  1. No wholesale [commercial use|hijacking] of the Wikipedia.
  2. Credit directly or indirectly through wikihistory.
  3. No real restriction on information which has been digested by sentients.
The GFDL (and CC-by-sa) allow commercial use, otherwise one could not sell printed material, but of course one must always allow free copying. Both supply credit. I'm not sure what you mean about "real restrictions on information", but part of the reason I am seeking multi-licensing from users is because your GFDL edits are restricted so that WikiTravel cannot use them because they use a different open/free license. Both licenses claim to be open and free, but the text of the license makes it clear that they can't be interchanged (without of course multi-licensing, which removes this restriction). Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 15:05, 9 December 2004 (UTC)

Energy Development and Hubbert's Peak Theory[edit]

There is a little storm brewing at Hubbert peak concerning, well, many things. But currently concerning how to organize information concerning future development of energy schemes (phrased as "Oil Alternatives" or "Future energy development" depending on whom you ask). As you might guess, Hubbert Peak is an article that might be expected to draw a lot of public interest and heat; Energy development is not. We could use your input regarding how to proceed. Visit Talk:Hubbert Peak to contribute. Thanks for your consideration. Tom - Talk 21:07, 15 December 2004 (UTC)

32,000 megatons of TNT = 133 Exajoules by my calculation[edit]

See the math calculations at Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#How_much_energy.3F, perhaps you can verify if there's no mistake. -- Curps 21:02, 31 December 2004 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page and at Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#How_much_energy.3F Rich Farmbrough 21:38, 31 December 2004 (UTC)

To elope[edit]

Kindly see my note (same heading) in the "Witold Pilecki" discussion. Logologist 04:49, 1 January 2005 (UTC)

Guiding Light[edit]

I answered your Charita Bauer question on Talk:Guiding Light. Mike H 22:12, 21 January 2005 (UTC)

Elias Omega coding[edit]

Resolved: All are at the correct title now

Is there a reason that you moved Elias Omega coding to Elias omega coding? The capitalization was chosen to be consistent with Elias Gamma coding and Elias Delta coding but you haven't touched those. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:31, 23 January 2005 (UTC)

Jiří Weil[edit]

Jiří Weil test User:Rich_Farmbrough/Jiří Weil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talkcontribs) 13:54, 29 January 2005 (UTC)

Golf terms[edit]

Archaic. I thought I'd entered these somewhere. Need to check them again.

Yes check.svg Done RF 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talkcontribs) 17:47, 30 January 2005 (UTC)


Hi Rich, has anybody asked whether you're interested in being an administrator? You've been around long enough to know your way around, and seem to have a pretty calm approach to things. I would be happy to nominate you if you are willing. Please let me know. --Michael Snow 21:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me nominate you. I've posted your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If you could go there and indicate your acceptance of the nomination, that would be great. Also posted there are some standard questions, if you wouldn't mind taking the time to answer them; some of the people considering admin candidates like to have a little more information, since they may not know much about you otherwise. --Michael Snow 17:15, 1 February 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, Rich![edit]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:23, 8 February 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for considering and/or voting on Adminship.[edit]

Much appreciated, hope it's good for us all. Rich Farmbrough 20:16, 8 February 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion: February 15, 2005[edit]

Three VfD's are taking place on key Project of Alternative Medicine articles.

I am contacting you because you have in the past made a edit to Terms and concepts in alternative medicine. You added a write up on Iridology to this article. And, I would hate to see all your efforts to improve this article be wasted because other editors voted to delete it.

I need you to vote to KEEP the following.

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_terms_and_concepts_used_in_alternative_medicine This article is extremely important to our project.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of miscellaneous topics related to alternative medicine

And, vote to REDIRECT the following.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Philosophy of alternative medicine

Please vote in favor of the Project on Alternative Medicine today, before it is too late.

-- John Gohde 16:06, 16 February 2005 (UTC)

BAPA UK or British[edit]

Thank you for copy editing the Amateur press association article. I used the word "British" and the associated wiki link British to describe BAPA because it was founded with members from the island of Great Britain. Subsequently it attracted members from Northern Ireland, Ireland (Eire) and elsewhere but originally it was British. I plan to revert the wiki link change of United Kingdom back to British. Is this OK with you? --Theo (Talk) 19:39, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

Note: I've repaired links to the disambiguation page for "British" in the above paragraph, to reduce crowding on the "What links here" page for that article. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 03:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Friendly question[edit]

I like the idea that editors such as yourself like to tidy things up (I enjoy creating new articles or contributing to articles that I am interested in); but what exactly is it that you are correcting? I am just curious. A number of my previous contributions have been referenced by your work, only you don't say what it is that you have done. If I knew (because it seems to be universal in nature), I would avoid doing whatever it is, or do whatever it is that isn't done, to avoid creating work. I am not in the least bit offended or critical, as I wrote, I like the idea that editors such as yourself exist (and if you didn't, you would have to be invented.) I just wish that I knew what it is that I am doing or not doing that is creating work. MPLX/MH 19:48, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

Pedro Lopez[edit]

I wonder if you've noticed that your "scratch" version of Pedro Lopez at User:Rich Farmbrough/Pedro Lopez actually shows up at Category:Hoaxes and the other categories that the scratch article has category tags for. If you're still using the scratch article but don't want it to show up on the category pages, you could try putting a colon inside the category tag, like this: [[:Category:Hoaxes]] This will turn it into a link to the category page rather than placing the page itself in the category. (this works, but for some reason I can't find it documented anywhere.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:52, 26 February 2005 (UTC)

Ezekiel Polk[edit]

I expanded your note on Polk County, Missouri, and had an interesting and frustrating time trying to researh Ezekiel Polk. Hope I got it close to correct, and thanks for the idea. Lou I 21:44, 26 February 2005 (UTC)


See here for details: Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/user --One Salient Oversight 05:37, 5 March 2005 (UTC)

Caution: Factual accuracy[edit]

In the Gamma ray burst article, you introduced a factual inaccuracy. You marked in the article that BeppoSAX was healthy as of 1004 (which was rapidly changed by others to 2004), when in fact it was deorbited in 2003. Please use caution that you don't introduce similar factual inaccuracies on future edits; they can be difficult to spot and call into question all facts in the pedia. Thanks. --Milyle 08:41, 10 March 2005 (UTC)

Eagle Scout[edit]

Hello. I wish to point out to you that over 1 million Eagle Scouts have achieved the rank since 1911. If you do the math, thats a little bit over 100,000 new Eagle Scouts a year. So it is still a rare occurance that a young man achieves Eagle Scout. Zscout370 00:26, 26 February 2005 (UTC)

  • Not that this undermines your point, but wouldn't that be 10,000 Eagle Scouts per year? --Milyle 08:43, 10 March 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Hi ! Would you please delete these Redirects who have a typo in their title but not in their redirect:

  1. Pazerkampfwagen V - Does not exist ("n" missing)
  2. Pzkw VI - There's no such designation - either PzKw VI or PzKpfw VI but not this one.
  3. Junkers JU87B-1 - aircraft naming conventions say manufacturer + model number, but nod with subversion number included

There are still some other strange Redirect under Junkers Ju 87 - don't know where they origin from

I was working on eliminating chains of redirects and found these mistyped entries --Denniss 01:33, 13 March 2005 (UTC)

Re: Doug Malloy[edit]

The article was deleted as per a VFD voting[2] on the grounds that he wasn't notable. But please don't get me wrong, I might be missing something :) About the links pointing to the page, are they about the same person that was deleted? If not, maybe you could make a request for it to be written (or, of course, just write it yourself). Thanks for your message! -Frazzydee| 04:50, 13 March 2005 (UTC)

Rachael McArthur[edit]

I've speedied Rachael McArthur, as requested. Why did you later want this not speeedied? Rich Farmbrough 17:02, 14 March 2005 (UTC)

  • Honestly, I can't remember the article, or removing a speedy. Sorry. Little curious now, though, but let it drop if you don't think it's a big deal, which I doubt it was. --InShaneee 02:29, 15 March 2005 (UTC)

California English[edit]

The article California English is being considered for undeletion, because the new article (which you can see at User:Nohat/California_English), bears no relation to the old article (at User:Nohat/Californian_Accent). --Angr 11:01, 20 March 2005 (UTC)

British/United Kingdom[edit]

Thanks for your correction in Yandabu Accord. I have changed the term British to United Kingdom.

Prabhakar 04:21, 21 February 2005 (UTC)

- - - -

I propose you take a look at Germanic peoples ones again. The context is clearly historical. Piping to the United Kingdom seems strange to me, and there already exists one such pipe, that maybe is a tad more appropriate. /Tuomas 14:28, 2 April 2005 (UTC)


Rich, why didn't you incorporate the text on the Talk page into the article, or was it in the article and you removed it? I thought that a substantial part of the text was very helpful. Did you write it, or what is the history of it? MPLX/MH 20:09, 2 April 2005 (UTC)

Justin Canha and the Google Test[edit]

Hello, Rich. I just saw your justification to not speedy delete the Justin canha article, in the article's history page. Responding to my speedy deletion reason: "This is an article about someone with less than 500 hits on Google" , you said (sic): "Google hits do not a speedy deletion make".

Are we abolishing the Google Test?

Among other reasons to do a Google Test there is: decide whether a person is famous enough to have an article or is just making the page because of vanity

--Abu Badali 17:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an imperfect tool used to produce a general gauge of notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive.
Secondly notability or lack thereof is not a reason for speedy deletion neither is vanity. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
I agree that Justin Canha almost certainly “should” be speedied, but under the current policy it needs to go to VfD. Rich Farmbrough 19:24, 12 April 2005 (UTC)


Just one more thing, Google Test was really voted for deletion. But the result was keep. --Abu Badali 17:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


Hello--Crestville 18:17, 13 April 2005 (UTC)


Hello--Crestville 18:17, 13 April 2005 (UTC)
Hello yourself :) Rich Farmbrough 15:26, 14 April 2005 (UTC)
Hey, cheers!  :)--Crestville 22:17, 14 April 2005 (UTC)


I notice you've been disambiguating links to Persia into Iran. Thanks, but please be aware that that article deals only with the country that's occupied that area since 1935, when the international community first began referring to it as Iran. Instances of Persia in more historical contexts--for instance, in ancient Roman, ancient Greek or Muslim history articles--should really be disambiguated to Persian Empire. Binabik80 03:23, 16 April 2005 (UTC)

I was also going to comment that this is probably a bad idea. Most of the the changes I checked should really be disambigged to Persian Empire. It is similar to linking to [[Ancient Egypt|Egypt]] rather than [[Egypt]]. -- Solipsist 06:34, 16 April 2005 (UTC)
I see you were reacting to the list at Wikipedia:Offline_reports/This_is_one_of_the_most_linked_to_disambiguation_pages. The fact that there are nearly 1500 Persia links, suggests that there could be an alternative solution, such as moving the current Persia to Persia (disambiguation) and making Persia a redirect to Persian Empire. However, there is already extensive discussion at Talk:Persia, which shows it is not a trivial issue. -- Solipsist 07:06, 16 April 2005 (UTC)
The problem with Persia is that the discussion, and the page itself, indicate that Iran is the correct disambig. There is a seperate page for Persian Empire, and I have changed a number of links from [[Persia]]n empire to [[Persian Empire]]. Iran includes a link to History of Iran which is also redirected from History of Persia. I'll leave it alone for now, and see what the discssion on talk:Persia brings forth. Rich Farmbrough 16:41, 16 April 2005 (UTC)
A number of the links you've made to Iran are clearly more appropriately made to Persian Empire, especially considering they are talking about events of 1,500-2,500 years ago. I've fixed some of them. As for History of Iran, the majority of it is on the 20th century, and the section on the older history notes that the main article is Persian Empire. I've fixed that re-direct to point to the article that actually has the information in it. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2005 (UTC)
Shoot, I got involved today with the project and have had the same problems, including someone who was miffed with my edits following behinf me and reverting everything I did. I think maybe we need to have a more general topis Persia, which could cover (and link to) the ancient empire, the modern Iran, and the cultural articles.General Leppy
Information icon.svg
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

bbx 01:20, 23 April 2005 (UTC)

David Farmbrough[edit]

Not sure that the second link to [[Winchmore Hill] is needed as it's linked in an earlier instance. User:DavidFarmbrough 11 Apr 2005 17:22 (BST)

I guess you're right. Rich Farmbrough 16:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And if you use <nowiki></nowiki> you can express wiki construct unwikily.Rich Farmbrough circa 16:37, 11 April 2005 (UTC)

Trouble at Wiktionary[edit]

There is a user on Wiktionary that is outta control and he must be stopped. Will you ban Bobtail since you are an adminstrator and on Wiktionary, protect "Template:Hellenicindex" and "Template:Englishindex" to avoid vandalisms. Pumpie, 21:12, 23 April 2005 (UTC)

Islamofascism VfD[edit]

Could you please explain the reasoning behind this decision? BrandonYusufToropov 20:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and for the suggestions on future edits. I'm partisan, I know, but it seemed to me that the "merge/redirect" + "delete" constituency was a working majority, and that it constituted something of a mandate for change. Could it have gone the other way, do you think? BrandonYusufToropov

Not sure how harmless it is, given the depth of anti-Muslim sentiment in the US and elsewhere, and the tendency of people to point to things like encyclopedia entries as evidence for the legitimacy of ideas that might otherwise be considered extremist and unacceptable. BrandonYusufToropov 22:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. Thanks again for the ideas on editing. It seems to me it should be a much shorter article if it remains. BrandonYusufToropov 22:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Germans vs Germany links[edit]

On several articles related to Czech Republic you changed link from Germans (as people) to Germany (as country). For example in Jihlava article the people link would be better - it is about events hundreds years ago when no state existed (and the people were identified more as Saxons, Bavarians etc than Germans). Pavel Vozenilek 10:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you are right. An article of its own would be needed for complete coverage. Pavel Vozenilek 10:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Bot? (Nobot)[edit]

No I'm not using a bot. See User:Rich_Farmbrough.

Are you using a bot? [3] seems rather odd ([[September 11, 2001 attacks|[[11 September]]]] really won't work, honest). Please note that running a bot without prior permission is a Bad Thing, most especially so when you don't even leave an edit summary

James F. (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Nor does one of the changes in this edit of Hansie Cronje. Well intentioned, but wrong. The template sorts out the linking, so it displays as "As of [[1 January]], 2005" -- ALoan (Talk) 18:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
this diff rather Rich Farmbrough 08:32 7 June 2006 (UTC).

Glad to sort out the Kissinger link; looks like there are problems on similar pages. Are you using a bot? Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No, no bot. Search and replace, then checking the diff. I was editing the Kissinger one when you fixed it. Rich Farmbrough 19:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages (sticky)[edit]

I noticed that you've done some disambiguation on [[British]] and others. I've been trying to do this as well. Any possibility of starting a project to do it? You can reply to this section. Thanks, Alphax τεχ 09:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How would you envisage this working? Rich Farmbrough 11:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok, people check Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (and the more updated one) and Category:Disambiguation for things to disambiguate. Where there is a clear alternative for a link target (eg. United States vs. America), it is inserted; where there is not, it is discussed. I realise the difficulty in maintaining such a thing, but ultimately, links to disambiguation pages lead to 2 pages being loaded per link followed - increasing server load and slowing down Wikipedia. Alphax τεχ 09:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a Wikipedia:Disambiguation queries page. OTOh the people who are best placed to decide will be the regular editors of the page, if any. Rich Farmbrough 13:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The hardest part is determining which disambiguation pages have the most incoming links - best determined by database dumps. In some disambiguation cases it's difficult to decide which alternative is best suited, so we need language & grammer experts working this (I'm neither). I wonder if we should post an expression of interest to the Village Pump or mailing list... Alphax τεχ 15:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm statting the diambiguation links from a database dump. Rich Farmbrough 19:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cool! Where will you put them? Alphax τεχ 04:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Offline reports/This is one of the most linked to disambiguation pages Note that these sub-pages don't seem to update the main page unless it's edited. This could be due to using the Paris caches. Same could apply to the "You have new messages" Rich Farmbrough 10:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Have you seen Template:Purge? Or my monobook.js and monobook.css (copied from ABCD's? Anyway, good to see the list updated again. How often will the script be run? Alphax τεχ 12:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It takes a few minutes of user time to do it, so whenever I notice the databse has been updated I will run it. Rich Farmbrough 16:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time to reset the indent level... Now to rope in more people to help... Alphax τεχ 07:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New database dump being d/l'd as we speak. Rich Farmbrough 15:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cool... do you know of any other people that would regularly check these? I was wondering how long it would take to de-populate the incoming links. Alphax τεχ 00:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Page updated now. Rich Farmbrough 11:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey! The page was moved and is now part of Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects. Good job! Alphax τεχ 12:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
BTW an new list is now uploaded. Rich Farmbrough 10:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Neat. Alphax τεχ 05:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Linking dates in references[edit]

I've noticed you're linking dates in references (e.g. here). I'm not sure if this is helpful - it just creates blue text that nobody will ever click on. Is your purpose to force the wiki to use local date settings? JFW | T@lk 21:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates Rich Farmbrough 21:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

And why are you switching month and day order, when the MOS does not suggest it, and the actual articles linked to have the opposite format to the one you are switching to? Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Because it looks the same. [[17 october]] [[2003]] renders as 17 october 2003 wheras [[October 17]] [[2003]] renders as October 17 2003. rgds, Rich Farmbrough 23:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it. Why switch October 17, 2003 to 17 October, 2003? Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me be a lttle clearer. I make no effort to keep the original order becasue it doesn't matter. I am using search and replace to make the change. However, now you mention it there is one advantage, from time to time I have to revert a change, which is simple, more infrequently I part revert, manually. This would be easier with the same order, so thanks, I'll probably do that. Rich Farmbrough 23:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not much clearer; why is it easier?

Because in the case in point I would edit "[[May 31]]" to "May 31" if I decided a change was wrong - less keystrokes and less chance of error. (E.G. date in a link, a direct quote, a template which imposes wikifying of dates, a URL.) (Except of course that in the case in point the date order wsn't changed anyway)

Also, don't you think the original authors had something in mind when they used that order?

Not in the vast majority of cases. Any more than they have something in mind when they say Anemia or Anaemia. When the layout is more important than the content, then the change should not be made, as in the examples above, or a proper name. When the idea is to refer to a period of time, then it is good that the users can see it in their desired format.

And finally, since the articles inevitably linked to say October 17, why not just link there? Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither format will be a redirect, so what does it matter? Rich Farmbrough 23:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It's disconcerting, for one thing, and Wikipedia policy generally encourages leaving alternatives like this in the form created by the original author. It's much the same for English/American spellings. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why it's disconcerting, since it's invisible, still never mind, with the changes I talked about I'll be doing what you want anyway. The example of Anemia/Aneamia was chosen to illustrate just such a point, generally it would be left alone, but in the article Anemia it's been regularised - it's not a big deal. Cheers, Rich Farmbrough 08:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The MOS does not actually suggest linking dates in references. Also, the dates in references often follow a specific format (year, month, day) that is not actually dependant on locale (see Pubmed entries, such as PMID 15908442). May I ask you to not link dates in references. JFW | T@lk 10:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


"... volume 31, September 1989" means that the September 1989 issue of a journal is a part of volume 31 of that journal. It is absurd to link that to 31 September, even if (or perhaps especially if) the month of September had 31 days. Michael Hardy 22:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talkcontribs) 13:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Al Qaeda dates[edit]

Yeah, my first impulse was to revert, then I thought, well some of these seem kosher so I'll try editing... but then I saw you'd edited a date inside a link, at which point I figured I'd just revert. :) --Golbez 16:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

How do get rights to delete and undelete pages and stuff?[edit]

Is there a class you must take, or no? Antares33712 22:26, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

Richard Vanderpool[edit]

Rich, please delete the article. It's a proven hoax (on the VfD talk page, you see all the information necessary to prove it was a hoax. I was in the speedy list, and seen it, and pulled it, thinking it was a valid article about an unfamous minor league baseball player. So I figured keep, even if for historical posterity. But seeing as it was a hoax, I feel VERY bad about pulling from the speedy. IF I adn't have done that, we would be wasting time on it.

Antares33712 22:38, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

Balky deletes[edit]

Like 2 out of 3 times (or more) clicking 'confirm' gives "Error. Sorry- we have a problem... The wikimedia web server didn't return any response to your request."? Oh, yeah. Rather tiresome. I haven't been deleting much recently so I don't have a good feel for if it only started after the outage earlier today, or not. Niteowlneils 22:41, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

Re: What to List on speedy deletion[edit]

Ok, fine, I'll cede. But my article on Nichole Arsenault was speedy-ed away from me, with no chance of a repost, yet this hoax is dragging on.

Antares33712 22:53, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

By that I mean, if that could be speedy-ed away, and the second editor nominated it for a speedy, and everything afterwards was vandalism, or adding more to the hoax, it should just be speedy-ed :-) Antares33712 22:55, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

True, it was on VfU[edit]

But the VfU got due process. I may not agree, but it got due process. I feel the speedy was out of process, because a) I didn't repost the content, b) I agrued its merits when it had the explain-significance flag, and promsed to research and add and c) I wasn't a part of the original VfD vote (if I would have been there, I would have voted keep. I read on a wikipedia page were that can be useful in establishing due process. So for that reason, I feel the delete without due-process. But on that, I'm starting to get tired of sounding like a sour grape.  :-) Antares33712 23:20, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

True, I probably did put it first. I forgot[edit]

I forgot. Can you add those edits under my name to my count. But on the due process you see my point. If I get the information and try to repost (under Wikipedia guidelines since the article was a stub), I don't want to be labeled a vandal. Antares33712 23:31, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

PS: Can you email me the page. I was proud of the IPA pronounciation thing I did (lord, now I'm so vane :-) ) Antares33712 23:31, 7 June 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow, thanks! I wasn't excepting that. I can work on making the article more notable. Antares33712 13:28, 8 June 2005 (UTC)
Ah, ok....thanks! Antares33712 15:46, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation scripts[edit]

I'm not sure what perl does with pipe characters (|), but I've made a little change to one of your scripts. Oh, and to fulfil one of my many pet peeves: When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Alphax τεχ 11:04, 11 June 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I have no idea why histogenesis was deleted. Danny 03:35, 15 June 2005 (UTC)

Hi, it was probably like you said. If it was blank, I would have deleted it during an effort to get rid of speedy deletes. Sorry for any confusion. Danny 17:47, 15 June 2005 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pakistan[edit]

Would you like to join the animated discussion on the Pakistan's talk page? The current issue is whether "Pakistan is famous for its support of Taliban and 9/11 terrorist" is a suitable sentence to start the article's first paragraph. Your contribution would be much appreciated, as the current discussion seems to be more of a dialog between Ragib and SamTr014 Talk:Pakistan. Thanks !--PrinceA 06:39, 18 June 2005 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto[edit]

R you interested in to join the discussion of cleaning up the article of Benazir Bhutto? Talk:Benazir Bhutto--Raju1 03:16, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Fathers' rights[edit]

Hi Rich, I noticed your changes to the dates on the Fathers' rights page. Perhaps you could explain how formatted dates improve the page? They add links to particular dates, eg. today is 24 June 2005 but are these links relevant or useful if no entry appears on the date pages to the 'event' from which they were linked? It seems like you are keen on date cleanup, I am just curious as to the purpose and rationale for this project. Any details cheerfully received. -Akiva Quinn 00:03, 24 June 2005 (UTC)


User:Rich Farmbrough 12:25, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Bot? - No bot[edit]

Are you running a bot to do disambiguation? You're missing an awful lot of edit summaries. Alphax τεχ 10:45, 24 June 2005 (UTC)

Ought to VfD but too lazy[edit]

Vaso Vukotic's Theory [Later deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaso Vukotic's Theory RF 2014] — Rich Farmbrough 09:46, 8 July 2005‎ (UTC)

Talk:2005 London...[edit]

I'm done, but I'll be keeping an eye on it. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 7, 2005 11:12 (UTC)

what's this with the 'gone in 60 seconds' note in the london bombings talk page? Adidas 00:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Revert your own edits...[edit]

You're the first strange person who'll write "revert my own edits" on the edit summary column XDDD. Deryck C. 12:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft specification survey[edit]

Since you are a contributor to aircraft articles, you may be interested in a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of our standard specifications section. Bobblewik 19:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD closure[edit]

Hi there. Per my comment in the VfD on the page you moved to, I'm wondering how you reached a "redirect" decision on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000. I count 15d, 5r which is a consensus to delete (imo). Note that Jarlaxle Artemis has sort-of voted twice. -Splash 23:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Date wikification bot? No bot[edit]

Are you running a bot to wikify dates? If so, you should fix your code to avoid false positives like [4] where you changed

on 5 September 665,000 Soviet prisoners were taken


on [[5 September]], [[665]],000 Soviet prisoners were taken

If you are running a bot, you need to follow the rules on Wikipedia:Bots, you need to run your bot under a separate account from your ordinary account, and you should announce your bot at Wikipedia talk:Bots to give other editors a chance to comment. Gdr 2005-06-30 19:46:41 (UTC)

No I'm not running a bot. Rich Farmbrough 6 July 2005 09:03 (UTC)

I also came across two different articles, where you changed the date format inappropriately (Vladimír Špidla and Calculating_the_day_of_the_week). I would advise you to fix the wikify bot to precede such errors and confusion.

cathack 6 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)
No I'm not running a bot. See my user page. Thanks for fixing the articles, prticularly day of week one which was an egregious oversight on my part. Rich Farmbrough 09:03, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikify Dates[edit]

Please see my user page. Rich Farmbrough 09:03, 6 July 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation scripts[edit]

Hello Rich, I noticed you generate the disambiguation link list and wanted to see if you would like to offload this duty. I have recently written wpfsck in Perl. It currently processes three cleanup projects while only requiring one scan over the cur and links dumps. Adding this to the existing cleanup projects would be simple and I am further developing a framework to automatically update and publish cleanup projects. As such this would become just another task it performs, but it would free you from the obligation. Regardless I have also created a Perl module you may find useful. It uses a callback system to facilitate processing of the dump files; the subroutine invoked gets a hash that is nearly identical to a $sth->fetchrow_hashref (if you know what that means, if not, it is very simple) and an optional second subroutine can be specified. This subroutine receives an identically structured hash but there are a few restrictions: the article text is read only and it is not safe to use regular expressions. The tradeoff is that memory copy operations can be avoided for articles you are not interested in and a significant performance boost. I also wrote a report generator that takes a list of articles and produces nicely formated cleanup projects. See this as an example. If you would like to use this code you are more than welcome. Lastly (whew, this is long winded), I have recently created the WikiProject help desk; in short its geeks taking requests for one off jobs that computers can do or helping people who use tools that have broken and they themselves don't know how to fix it. Right now there is little demand but I suspect that will change when word gets out. Are you interested? Thanks for the ear, Triddle 07:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

African COTW[edit]

You showed support for the African Collaboration of the Week. This week Dar es Salaam was chosen. Please help improve it to featured-article standard.

Cast your vote to select next week's collaboration!

Unsigned User:Stan2525 20:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


I do not think it was a good idea to move 1000000000000000000 to 1000000000000000000 (number). If you noticed, the article is being voted for deletion, so it is best to keep it in place while the vote takes place.

Second, by moving it, you made the link to the votes for deletion page invalid (well I did a redirect, but that does not change my point).

Can you move the article back please? Oleg Alexandrov 20:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Oleg.
I have closed the VfD (which has been running a long time), making 1000000000000000000 a redirect to 11th millennium and beyond. I have moved the content to 1000000000000000000 (number) where it belongs. I have put small note at the top of 11th millennium and beyond for anyone who gets redirected having entered 1000000000000000000 (or any other large number), and meant the number not the year. If you want to have 1000000000000000000 (number) deleted, then a seperate VfD could be used. Rich Farmbrough 20:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I see. I was confused by the fact that the article was moved but the vfd notice was not removed (I mean, almost half of the day passed between the two).
About the new article 1000000000000000000 (number). I think this has no chance of developing into an encyclopedic article, so I do plan to vote it for deletion. Let us see how it goes. Oleg Alexandrov 21:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You may well be right. Sorry I left the VfD notice in by mistake. Rich Farmbrough 21:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Why did you close the VFD on 1000000000000000000 with redirect? The tally for the VFD was 5 or 6 for redirect (to different articles), 13 for delete. Are you ignoring the results of VFD? --A D Monroe III 00:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Would deletion and recreation as a redirect pacify you? — David Remahl 01:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I've put my thoughts on the 1000000000000000000 (number) VfD page. Rich Farmbrough 01:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I read your comments. To summarize, you looked over the VFD results, disagreed with them (for reasons you stated), redirected the page, and then closed the VFD with the text "The result of the debate was move and replace with redirect" when you knew the result of the debate was to delete. Is this right? --A D Monroe III 02:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Hi Rich! No, I’m not using a bot for the corrections I am currently doing, just a custom wiki editor. I have a registered bot for automated tasks, though (User:Diderobot). Cheers, Sam Hocevar 08:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wondrous numbers?[edit]

What are wondrous numbers? What are the wondrous numbers before and after 384? I searched the OEIS for the term "wondrous number" then a search for core sequences containing 384, but found nothing for this. PrimeFan 20:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Multi-index notation[edit]

Hi Rich. Just one remark. You deleted a huge chunk of the article Multi-index notation without an edit summary and only with a minor edit flag. It took me a while to realize that it was you who put that fragment to start with, but it is good if you put an explanation next time. By the way, just before seeing your deletion I saw a (real this time) vandalism at real number where again stuff was deleted without explanation, so as you might guess I am not very pleased with text just vanishing unexpetedly. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 17:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Double-indent -- please don't[edit]

Hi, I notice you double-indented several formulas in several articles. Please don't, it violates the current style guidelines Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) (against which more than several thousand math articles are written). To change the guidelines, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Don't be surprised if the double-colon usage is reverted to single-colon over time. linas 00:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Please rewrite or otherwise improve any of those articles (some sorely need it). However for future reference the style guide currently says:

When displaying formulas on their own line, one should indent the line with one or more colons (:);

Rich Farmbrough 10:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


Pardon my ignorance, but why did you put "obliged" instead of "obligated" in Anti-semitism? What is the difference between the two words? I thought "obliged" meant something similar to "pleasured" or something like that....

Thanks! --Sebastian Kessel 17:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Apart from a special use in biology obligate means pretty much the same as oblige. I am of the opinion that it is a back-formation from obligation that came about in the 15th or 16th century, and I find it ugly. For the wikitionary defn. of oblige see. Rich Farmbrough 20:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that I didn't know! :) Thanks! --Sebastian Kessel 20:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question about the similar edits made in the Liberty Law article. I think there is a difference between the two words; obligated implies there is a requirement defined by law or contract, obliged implies it is a moral or social requirement. (The wikitionary definition doesn't follow this, but unfortunately I don't regard it as being as authoritative as other dictionaries, which do make this distinction.) That said, I think obligated is the correct word in the context of this article. MK2 23:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

OED agrees that legal requirement is included, in its lengthy articles. More accessibly the American Heritage Dictionary says " To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means." Mirrim Webster has "to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force or by the exigencies of circumstance". Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 23:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's impossible to interpret obliged the way you're using it. But obligated conveys the meaning more accurately. MK2 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
"Until recently, the sense of this word has been restricted to positive and personal acts; and when moral duty or law binds a person to do something, the word oblige has been used. But this distinction is not now observed." Websters 1828.

"Obliged" is more common in British speech. That said, please stop converting one to the other because you find one "ugly". Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Much obliged for your advice. Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Obligated has been in use for 500 years. I think you need to concede it's won a place in the language. MK2 04:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Who would have thought the old word had so much blood in him? Rich Farmbrough 11:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I see you have been reverting the American "obligated" to the British "obliged" even on American topics and pages that were written in AmEn. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English states that if the page is regarding a specific country (i.e., the US) then that country's style of English should be used. I am refering specifically to the MLB, NBA and US political pages you altered. It seems like you are compromizing the spirit of the guidelines in favor of your personal preference. The word "obligated" conveys a much stronger meaning on these pages and is languisticly more appropriate in American English. Would you mind please stop altering the word on the pages that are already written in American English? Have a good day!--CrazyTalk 19:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo. Rather than ugliness, redundancy is a valid criterion for removing parts of words, and the 'at' of obligated appears to be redundant even in this context. I say this as an English graduate and as a lawyer. I'm not sure I would bother editing an article just for the sake of it though. DavidFarmbrough 17:14 (BST) 12 September 2005

alex is right and teal is wrong. obligate and oblige is the same thing


Hi, a friendly heads-up: orientated is the usual British English spelling, so I use it in my articles. I appreciate the thought, though. ;) Mark1 04:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

With both these words the shorter (orient, oblige) is more widely used, and acceptable on both sides of the Atlantic. The extra syllable makes one (orientate) grate on American ears, the other (obligate) on British. It seems sensible to use the shorter version, but <meh>, if anyone wants to change my edits back, I'm not likely to be bothered. Rich Farmbrough 12:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

47, 11^6[edit]

Thanks for the 47 from the Doctor's aria. It's a little reaching, but I've added it to my list. Thanks also for the note about 11^6. I see PrimeFan added it to 1000000 (number) (together with 1331^2) but didn't tell me about it. I thought this number was on that sequence about the dying rabbits. ShutterBugTrekker 22:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


Now you've written sitaxsentan, would you mind also writing endothelin and bosentan? I now next to nothing about it but it sounds fascinating. JFW | T@lk 21:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Psalms of Confession[edit]

Thanks. Eugene van der Pijll 11:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

PlanetMath Exchange project[edit]

Hi Rich, welcome to the PlanetMath Exchange project! I've modified slightly the entries you made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange/05-XX Combinatorics, to be consistent with the other entries and the style that has developed in the project. Hope you don't mind ;-) Thanks for contributing, It is a big project and we can use all the help we can get. You might want to consider adding your name to the "Participants" list at the bottom of the projects page here. Again thanks for helping out. Paul August 22:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

About the grammar edit on "Self-defence ..."[edit]

Obliged and obligated are synonymous. No further edits are required.

--J-Star 18:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics[edit]

You might be interested to have a look. Regards. --Pgreenfinch 13:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Open Proxies[edit]

I want to investigate some recent vandalism coming from many IPs, I saw your note on User:Func's talk page, I would appreciate any scripts that help test for open proxies. Rich Farmbrough 22:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want to test a specific IP for an open proxy but you don't know on which port, your best best bet is to search for the IP on the web with google. If it finds something in a "list of open proxies" it'll usually include a port and you can try editing wikipedia through that proxy; if it works you can block it indefinitely. If that fails, you can also try port scanning the host to find open proxy ports. Try nmap. --fvw* 22:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


Hi Rich. You recently turned "23 October" into a link on 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Not that it bothers me much, but it was already a link in the previous sentence, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) discourages multiple links to the same page on the same screen, especially with dates, so I thought I'd call your attention to this. KissL 10:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm also curious why you seem to be going around to numerous pages and turning every date into a link? The first time it is used on a page, fine, but otherwise it is overkill and muddies the page. Peyna 00:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). This is to allow date preferences to work. If you set them you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way. Rgds. Rich Farmbrough 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


Having completed the first pass stats for the PlanetMath Exchange project, when I should have been doing Real Life, I am now taking a short Wikibreak. Rich Farmbrough 19:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

When you are back, you might be interested in checking out my suggestions for improving the Perl script. (Look at that, he wrote a 10 line script and is already talking wikibreak :) Oleg Alexandrov 21:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm as back as I'll ever be :-) . Rich Farmbrough 14:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The May Day Mystery

Science pearls[edit]


Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 09:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You marked the Camp Iguana article as {POV}, but you didn't say why?[edit]

You marked the Camp Iguana article as {POV}, but you didn't say why. Aren't you supposed to say why? May I ask you how you think we can reach a consensus as to when it is no longer POV if you don't say what you consider POV about it? -- Geo Swan 22:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw your addition to the page, yesterday, and replied on Talk:Camp Iguana last night. Yes, the Bush administration made the claim that their suspects did not fall under the Geneva Conventions. But they were over-ruled by the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch had the final say here. Which, to my way of thinking, means that the official position of the US government, after some internal wrangling, is that the US government eventually acknowledged that they did have an obligation to have conducted "competent tribunals", in Afghanistan. This leaves me curious as to the value of including the claim. -- Geo Swan 15:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikify dates script[edit]

I'm sorry to say that this is breaking easy timelines... it messed up Prime Minister of New Zealand real good. Better check before you use it. Alphax τεχ 10:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. There was another one, which I recognised as being special on the edit page, I would have spotted this one, but for Wikipedia's reluctance to show pages after an edit. I can prevent it recurring. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough 13:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Rich, this also falls over when it comes across European date formats - e.g. this diff. In cases like this, where there's a mix of formats used, or where there's not enough context to tell the format of dates for sure, a script just seems like an easy way to be careless. (BTW, I do think wikifying loads of dates is a Good Thing, it's just that introducing errors in the process isn't!) sjorford #£@%&$?! 22:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I catch most of these, and do it differently for mm/dd/yyyy. Sometimes you can't tell which format it is and have to research (which is a bummer). If I get it wrong the zz's are a warning. I've only found about two articles which mix the // styles, but
really takes the biscuit! There's only about 400 more articles to fix, then it's back to the "simple" dates where the month is in words. Thanks again, let me know if you see any more howlers. Rich Farmbrough 22:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Enola Gay[edit]

Hey Rich, I saw the edits you did on the Enola Gay page. Just curious if you have an interest in terms of the plane. Davidpdx 9/17/05 7:00 (UTC)

Only a general way. I was fixing all refernces to the "United States Army Air Force" to read "United States Army Air Forces" Rich Farmbrough 16:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Rich - I noticed you wikified 1945 in the Paul Tibbets article when it was already wikified in the same paragraph. Most editors will only wikify the first occurance of linkable text in an article. I personally feel that in long articles, it is good to wikify text when it occurs in far separated sections, since the reader may not have read the section where the first link occurs. Just my 2 cents. --Rogerd 17:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). This is to allow date preferences to work. If you set them you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way.
In particular if your preference is set for ISO dates (1995-10-22) , it requires the year as well as the month to be wikified. Rich Farmbrough 18:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for explaining--Rogerd 18:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Luther Page Rewrite Discussion on[edit]

See the Luther page talk. --CTSWyneken 01:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Japanese emperors[edit]

Hi. I notice you are on a bit of a mission to Wikify dates, which is a laudable goal. However, I wouldn't bother with any of the dates in the Japanese emperor articles. Japan used a completely different calendar system until 1873, and it isn't clear yet whether the dates in those articles are Gregorian/Julian dates or Japanese dates. If the latter, they shouldn't be Wikified. Anyway, there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) regarding how dates should be treated in Japanese articles. Probably should wait for that to conclude before making any more changes. I plan on going through and sorting through and cleaning up those dates at some point anyway. -Jefu 16:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Dates / my sig[edit]

It's good to see another person is working on dates. I too have spent a quantity of time fixing incorrectly formatted dates and date links. I've been doing it manually, which has the advantage of being unlikely to cause problems, but is also painfully slow.

Thanks for commenting on my experiment. You're the first person to notice, as far as I know. How did you find it, by the way? I haven't been very active lately. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I want to sign my comments like this Rich Farmbrough 08:27 20 September 2005, and couldn't figure out how to do it so I searched user talk space, and found lots of /sig pages, including yours. I finally realised I could set up my nickname as xxx [[{{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}]] etc.. but I still need to sign, save then edit/save again to get the subst to work. On the subject of dates in articles, most of my uncorrected mistakes (so far I've only been told about a handful in many thousands of edits) "escape" either because I've got over~tired or goggle eyed, or because the 'pedia responds too slowly, rather than any fundamental problem. Pretty much everything has to be checked because so many articles have links to September 11th, 2001 attacks!
Also there's loads of stuff in quotes, split onto mutliple lines, and in URLs. Any ideas for the sig, by the way?
Hmm. That's a clever idea, but no, I don't think it's currently possible. You might just put to the developers that sig dates should be wikified. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not a date, it's an edition name[edit]

Rich, I wonder if you noticed that at the top of my own user talk page I say I'll answer points there in preference to the questioner's talk page. Anyway, you asked there about a funny date, and I've answered you there. (If you'd like to discuss it further, please do so there rather than here.)

Irrelevantly, since you last commented on AfD/Charles Gauci I think the vehemence and provenance of that article's spirited defenses have made it look more obviously vanity. I've voted "userfy" (the user in question seems to have no interest in WP that's not directly relevant to himself). -- Hoary 09:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Charles Gauci[edit]

I would like to get your attention to the so-called discussion that is going on here since it has gone way out of hand. I have been attacked personally and so has another fellow Wikipedian. Can you moderate the discussion since unfortunately it has turned out to be a constant barrage of personal attacks and name-calling by those who want to keep the article? I personally won't post again there since the discussion page is no ground for personal wars. Regards --Roderick Mallia 12:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Admin

  • Its ok giving attacks but its not acceptable for those to argue a point with either roderick Mallia or Maltesedog. They should be placed on remand, as when asked for a detailed reply, one gets attacks right back. You will see many times when I ve asked for the arguements to be only based on the matter of discussion. Nothing else. --Tancarville 10:52, 22 September 2005 (EST)
    • I have examined the votes on the AfD, and reckoned that 6/3 in favour of deletion is sufficient consensus to delete, bearing in mind that little additional notability was established. Hence I have deleted the article and closed the debate. I would suggest that anyone who wishes to see an article of this name, provide clear evidence and justification of ntability to the votes for undeletion, which data could then be incorporated into the article. Perhaps wait until he has recieved his Maltese Republic award. For example, are the books he authored published by a notable publishing house? How many copies have sold. Are they cited as standard reference works. Has he published on pain management, and is he cited? What is the nature of the award from the Republic of Malta, and how many people recieve it each year? How many people have a title of similar rank to his? Did he write the "bird book" or is that someone else? etc.
    • On the subject of personal abuse in the AfD, what a shame! It did not advance any argument an iota, and resulted in more ill feeling than was probably intended. It is clear to a dispassionate observer where the abuse stemmed from, but one has to be aware that people feel personally attacked when their contributions to the 'pedia are attacked. I speak from experience.

rgds, Rich Farmbrough 14:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't change file names[edit]

Thanks for the date fixes, but you can't wikify a date in a file name. [5] (SEWilco)

Thanks for spotting. I thought I had avoided the pix, I have now gone back and done the other captions. Rgds, 'Rich Farmbrough' 13:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Date links[edit]

Hello there. I see your date bot took on a vast chunk of the calendar yesterday, linking all the dates in the top paragraphs of the mmmm-dd articles. Great work! Uh... I know it's a drag to be pressganged through the medium of your user talk page, but if you have a moment, and the inclination, please take a look at the linking dates discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year and, if you're feeling inspired, share a comment or two about why it's a good idea. Thanks. Hajor 14:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Replied there. It's not a bot, though, it's search and replace with manual checking! (Although the date pages were easy.) Rich Farmbrough 14:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Not a bot? Wow! Thanks for chipping in. Hajor 14:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

NIce to be appreciated Rich Farmbrough 15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Date project[edit]

Please make sure your code does not mess up links to Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996. Cheers. – Kaihsu 19:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Your date project work is partially or largely automated? May I suggest it is too automated?
I am going to suggest that your date project work on Camp Iguana [6] really wasn't helpful. I am going to suggest that you should only wikify a date if there is some reason why a reader would look up that date. In the external links section, when would it be useful to let a reader look up noteworthy events that occurred on, June 13, or July 27? Maybe if the external link was to an article that reflected on the anniversary of an event like 1941-12-7, or 2001-9-11. But those are special cases. Excess wikification just clutters up an article, and should be avoided. Sorry, but I don't see the value in the wikification of any of the dates you wikified in this article.
I looked at your contributions today. You wikified the dates in dozens of articles today, spending about one minute per article. Forgive me if I am concerned that this wasn't really long enough for you to read the articles in sufficient depth to make a meaningful decision as to whether wikifying those dates makes sense. -- Geo Swan 22:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Please see my comments below exlaining the reasons most dates should be wikified, and giving refernces to the Manual of Style. Rich Farmbrough 23:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed you "wikified" some dates on Leicester City. One of these datas was already in YYYY-MM-DD format, and thus correct for wiki according to style and formatting guidelines[7]. Guinness 18:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly correct sir, Rich Farmbrough 10:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You have wikified an Old Style date in Joseph Sunlight. Of course, that will link to the New Style date which I think is inappropriate. Any comments? Cutler 15:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this creates a non-ideal situation. However this is to allow date preferences to work. If you have them set you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Since linkage of the dates is very unimportant compared with the formatting, I think it's worth doing anyway. Realistically people are not going to click on the date link, and to link to the new-style date would break formatting, and posibly be obtuse. Ideally there would be seperate markup for dates, that wouldn't link by default. Rich Farmbrough 15:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Reticular Formation[edit]

Hey Rich, I was just wondering what the reticulsar formation is and if it was similar to the reticular formation. Also, I wanted to know why my signature was taken off, i wrote the entire article with the exception of a few reticulsar edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnotanorange (talkcontribs) 14:47, 24 September 2005‎ (UTC)

Question on dates[edit]

Greetings! I note that you wikified a date on Windham, Ohio. All well and good, but the date wikified was merely the date I retrieved info from the village school's website. Somehow, I just don't have that high an opinion of myself as to think that's a notable date in the village's history. But that does bring to mind a question: Is every date mentioned in an article to be wikified per the Manual of Style? -- SwissCelt 11:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason for wikifying dates is often not because the link is important, but rather that it is essential to make user preferences work (that little "preferences" link you see on your page when you are logged in). Gene Nygaard 21:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Dates[edit]

I noticed that you wikified another Japanese date. The Japanese lunisolar calendar was completely different from the Western calendar. Therefore, wikifying them doesn't make any sense, because they do not correspond. -Jefu 23:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikification of dates[edit]

Why, oh why, do you wikify dates? Babajobu 12:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Same reason you spell out small numbers. It's the right thing to do. Note that this is to allow date preferences to work. If you have them set you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Rich Farmbrough 15:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Gasp! Okay, fine, I'll support date wikification if you support the spelling out of numbers under one hundred. My only concern is that 1) wikifying dates causes some articles to become overlinked, and that in those cases an additional link is a steep price to pay for the ability to choose "11 September" over "September 11". However, I will pocket those reservations in exchange for your support in my jihad against inappropriate numerals. Babajobu 15:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
And, from the way you have done the Wikifying of the dates, it looked like it was run by some type of script. Please tell us that you are doing this, so we can point you to the right direction so we can get your script a bot flag. Zach (Sound Off) 07:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Count Stephen Sant Fournier[edit]

This getting a bit too much, User:Maltesedog now is after another biography of mine and you feel he isnt taking this personal?? He is not making any sense nor is he communicating with the author directly like Administors have in the past. He automaticly places things into deletion. He must be stopped or banned. Please view what he has done before he continues deleting all of Maltese histories. Tancarville 06:46, 26 September 2005 (EST)

- Your not doing a thing about Maltesedog or Hoary?? Typical!! *Keep Tancarville 06:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Dear Rich,

Placing articles for afd doesn't imply there's something wrong about the particular person who wrote them. Tancerville has valid articles, which form part of the collection in Wikipedia and are also of importance. However I cannot understand his insistance that I am abusing and placing unnecessary his articles for afd, bearing in mind that since the creation of wikipedia I have only placed 3 of his articles, without taking any consideration that they are his. I do not believe that I am not maintaing a neutral pov in this respect. I am not deleting all Maltese histories. There was concencus in wikipedia that Maltese Nobility, modern nobility should not be deleted only for the sake of being noble. It is not a question of placing articles into deletion. I have placed comments in the talk pages of the articles, but these were removed by Tanacerville. To me, this is intimidation not to place any more articles into afd. Debates occur in afd, it is not simply a question of rapidly removing articles, intense debates are generally done through afd and generally concencus is reached. I place the articles in the afd for others to see the opinions of others. Whether they want the deletion or not. It is not simply a matter of deleting a page without any consideration/discussion as Tancerville wishes to imply above. In view of the above, I would be grateful to comment on all the above so that to end this story once and for all.

However, I cannot understand why placing an opinion on the afd page for deletion can cause so much personal anger. Should I be intimidated by such users? I've had articles deleted such as the on the Mediterranean Region, now recreated ignoring all my work and intense research but if other users thought it was appropriate deletion, I said - I give up and did not keep insisting and taking it against the person who placed it for deletion. I am not against Maltese History far from it. I take active interest. But articles like Stephen Sant Fournier and the one of Charles Gauci, have nothing to do with history. These people are alive. Maltesedog 20:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


not at all, thanks. I always suprise how fast wikipedia communit correctis gramma or letter mistakes :). Regards Rafikk 20:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Solar Oven/Furnace[edit]

See Talk:Solar oven DavidFarmbrough 16:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


Could you please wikify the dates again in Khalistan? Your changes were lost when I reverted the changes of a persistent vandal. You have made the changes to a POV/vandalized version. Thanks! --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്)

No problem, Thanks a bunch! --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്) 17:34, 1 October 2005‎ (UTC)

Careful with bot[edit]

Please note that I had to revert your edit here because what you wikified was not a date.

Also note that a date written in the month-day-year order properly needs a comma after the day and before the year, which you are removing on a mass scale, such as in this article. --Jiang 05:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I will try to avoid pinyin in future! By the way it's not a bot, it's search and replace. Rich Farmbrough 09:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Usually the pinyin has tones instead of numbers, and with time, numbered pinyin will be converted to tones pinyin.

I would prefer that dates written in North American Month-day style by default not be purposely changed to European day-Month unless the subject is European as it would unnecessarily favor one style over the other. I don't think the edit here is appropriate because the subject is Chinese, and in China, dates are written Month-day and not day-month (but then again, the format is something like 2005.10.02 for today and not October 2, 2005, so I think no change in the default is the best solution for this case). --Jiang 09:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

2005.10.02 can be quickly wikified as [[2005-10-02]] which renders depending on your date preferences as 2005-10-02. Rich Farmbrough 22:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Spot the difference[edit]

OK. I give up. Unless you are a bot (in which case, here is my copy of the News Chronicle and I claim my £5) I've looked and I've looked, but I still can't see the difference you made with your "Wikify dates" edit to Jabbeke. -- Picapica 16:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I was puzzled to start with as well, you had already done the date so my search and replace would have no effect, normally if an edit makes no difference, then it is not saved. But I must have been super observant, and removed the space before the closing square brackets around the website reference. Rich Farmbrough 22:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

dates in Russian personalia[edit]

Hi there Rich! just thought I'd share with you some odd peculiarity of the calendar in Russia (which you might not be aware of; sorry if I'm beating yet another dead horse... :) OK, so in Russian personalia, the dates of birth and death are often cited in both New Style and Old Style because in Russia, the calendar shift from the Julian to Gregorian has occured less than a century ago (!) and much of the published biographical data still show dates under both calendars or even under the Old Style only (causes confusion often, must I admit :)

For example, Ivan Goncharov article has the dates listed by the New Style, and these will be the ones that get recorded into the births/deaths Calendar and born/died Categories. And, the article also shows the dates under the Old Style for reference -- those were left unwikified intentionally. I'd be okay with leaving them wikified as long as they won't automatically go into the said Categories or events Calendars. Would they? not quite sure how exactly that works in the English wikipedia... I also feel that leaving them unwikified helps clarity as the "proper" dates stand out -- but this is certainly a one person opinion. What'd be your take on this? Regards - Introvert talk 23:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Suppose Ivan Ivanovitch was born 6 January 1813 NS 25 December 1812 OS.
As I see it there are four issues here:
  1. Will the "born in 1812" category include Ivan wrongly?
  2. Will the 1812 article include Ivan Iavanovitch on the OS birthday?
  3. Will the 25 December page include Ivan?
  4. Will it look OK?

  1. I don't think so, the process is smarter than that, and wiifying the date certainly won't affect it.
  2. No, that's a manual process (or the page wuld be overloaded).
  3. Ditto.
  4. Yes, I think because otherwise the date will look something like 6 January 1813 NS December 25 1812 OS to some users.

Rich Farmbrough 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
All right! Ivan Ivanovich will be properly tagged and logged :) Yes, I wasn't sure how the inclusion into the calendar categories works (I know that it is automated in the Russian wikipedia). If it is to remain manual, then... I shouldn't have taken your time. Regarding #4, like I said I do prefer the "otherwise" because this way, it helps the contemporary calendar dates properly stand out, but it is of course a matter of personal taste. Thank you again for taking time to explain - Introvert talk 03:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft specs policy[edit]

Several weeks ago, you voted in the WikiProject Aircraft Specifications Survey. One of the results of the survey was that the specifications for the various aircraft articles will now be displayed using a template. Ericg and I have just finished developing that template; a lengthier bulletin can be found on the WT:Air talkpage. Naturally, we will need to begin a drive to update the aircraft articles. However, several topics in the survey did reach establish consensus, and they need to be resolved before we implement the template. It is crticial that we make some conclusion, so that updating of the specs can resume as soon as possible. You can take part in the discussions here. Thanks, Ingoolemo talk 06:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK meeting[edit]

Hi Rich, there will probably be a meeting for the purpose of discussing Wikimedia UK this Sunday, which you might like to attend. You could add your name there if so. Cormaggio @ 23:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rich,[edit]

Princess Margaret of Prussia was also hit by some of the endless mess left by user:Arrigo if I remember well. I never had any dealings with that article apart from a piped link repair and a minor lay-out tweak.

As a suggestion, maybe ask user:deb, I believe she has more experience here than I have (about that type of Princesses) - Not so long ago I left her this note: diff --Francis Schonken 12:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Put up the merge templates for the two identical margaret(e)s (suggesting a direction for merging) nonetheless - PS, If you happen to see Cormaggio this WE, send him my regards! --Francis Schonken 12:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


I, FireFox hereby award you this Minor Barnstar for all your brilliant minor edits!

FireFox 19:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Me, Justintmartin, and Buddy Love[edit]

Me, Justintmartin, Buddy Love, and Brittany h 2 o share the same IP then. And, I edited Buddy's page for him. He asked me to. C2 aaron 13:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

IP Address?[edit]

I don't know if I have a shared IP address. How would that happen? C2 aaron 12:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It's sort of a high school. It's a school in a residential treatment facility. It has kids from different grades in it. Me, Justin, and Buddy (Aaron) are all in high school though. C2 aaron 13:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


Just called by to say nice job on expanding 9814072356. FWIW, I have voted strong keep on its Afd page. Gandalf61 11:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Deletion[edit]

Are you an admin? Can you get LP aaron C2, P.I.D, Samantha Day, Sarah Love, and Brittany h2 o

deleted? 2 or 3 of them were created by Buddy Love, and 2 were created by me (sorry, it won't happen again). Thanks. C2 aaron 13:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


I typed to Jessica Liao, to give advice on kids. 10 or 15 minutes later, I went back to her talk page. I found out, Buddy Love had edited my advice, so his signature would be on it. I reverted it back already. C2 aaron 13:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, but I have reverted several of your edits. Please don't change English from one form to another to suit personal preferences. - SimonP 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


The user#N blocks represent autoblocks of the underlying IP address when a particular username is blocked. This is implemented by the Mediawiki software. -- Curps 00:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Physical Effects of Abortion[edit] can be changed to be more neutral. I have wikified and marked as not NPOV. It was marked as from the Catholic Encyclopedia...if we have a template for it, I assume that it's ok. raylu 16:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Deletion[edit]

This is LP aaron C2( C2 aaron ). Could you please delete my User and User talk pages or have them deleted? Thanks. LP aaron C2 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


[8]: did you really mean to wikify the date on which I accessed a web reference? What is the point of that? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). This is to allow date preferences to work. If you have them set them you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way.
In particular if your preference is set for ISO dates (1995-10-22) , it requires the year as well as the month to be wikified. Rich Farmbrough 09:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Deletion[edit]

This is User:P I D ( C2 aaron ). Can you please delete my user and user talk pages? Preacher In Development 15:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

thank you but never mind

Pimp Juice 14:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect date wikifying[edit]

Hi Rich,

Properly-wikified dates are good, and I'm glad you're working on it. However, your bot has been making erroneous edits which I've had to revert. Consider this edit and my reversion. One is a direct quotation which shouldn't be modified. Also the dates in the infobox are already wikified by the template so that people don't have to remember to do it themselves. I'm not sure whether that's the right or wrong thing to do, but it's the way it's done, and if you wikify them again they end up as [[[[21 June]]]] which renders as [[21 June]]. I found another example where you'd done that too. I'm worried we're going to end up wasting a lot of time reverting your edits if you don't make a special case for that. Thanks. Stephen Turner 13:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, most of the cricket articles are so good I usually cancel the edit. I also made a change to search and replace some time ago, to ignore dates immediately preceded by an "=" sign, I can then override by inserting a space between the = and the date. However I've had a better idea...
  • In the round, I'm making a few uncorrected mistakes, but out of many thousand edits, and improving all the time. Quotes are hard, and can only be checked by inspection, (and sometimes the "quote" is a translated, in which case the wikifying is the right thing to do), but I can certainly exclude lines starting with ":".
  • Incidentally, because of wikilag, I do a bunch of pages, check them, then the next bunch, arguably the checking is the weakest point of the process, and the better the rest, the weaker the checking gets. Also worth noting, the main part of wikifying dates is almost done.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough 14:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I reverted part of your edit here because dates in URLs do definitively not need wikification. You might want to exclude this kind of behaviour from any automated processes. --zerofoks 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for Adminship[edit]

Rich, I would appreciate any input you have for my Request for Administrator. Thanks so much --Reflex Reaction 21:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Wikify dates"[edit]

You made an edit to List of Native American tribes with the edit summary, "Wikify dates" [9] While the edit itself was a useful one, the difference between the edit summary and the change that you actually made makes it harder for someone like me who is verifying that any given edit wasn't vandalism. Please use descriptive edit summaries that match the changes you are making. Thanks. -Harmil 14:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I had not realized what a compulsion this seems to be for you until I reviewed your recent edits. The following changes:
are just a sampling of your "Wikify dates" edits over the last couple of days. None of them have anything to do with dates, though they are not actually vandalism either. You seem to have a desire to contribute, so why are you so insistent on making the edit histories of these articles inaccurate? -Harmil 13:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Simply a default edit summary, that didn't get turned off. Rich Farmbrough 17:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You might want to be a bit more careful when you convert dates - see Silver Dollar City, specifically the various statments that "childern under 8 may ..." - that is NOT a date. N0YKG 21:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

See note at top of page.[edit]

It's in big letters. Night night. Rich Farmbrough 00:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1st Cav dates[edit]

You should check out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) before editing more dates and deleting commas. The style is supposed to be either

and the styles should agree throughout the article.

(I will someday try to clean up that page, but it's such a mess, I've put it low on my list.) Hal Jespersen 00:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Just for you I've made them consistant. Rich Farmbrough 00:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

History of the administrative division of Russia[edit]

Hi, Rich! I should have probably mentioned this before, because you apparently are wikifying dates in bulk (in a semi-bot mode, perhaps?). Just wanted to let you know that the dates in the History of the administrative division of Russia series of articles (such as this one do not need to be wikified. The reason for that is that there are two sets of dates given—Gregorian and Julian. The Gregorian date is the main one, so it's linked. Linking the Julian date would be redundant (and not quite correct). The other dates/years are duplicates—the first instance is already linked, so there is no need to wikify the rest (otherwise it looks over-linked). Please let me know if you have questions. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 00:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for contating me. This is more about formatting than linkage. For example this is how Administrative divisions of Russia in 1713-1714 looks to someone with their date preferences set to number-month-year.

  • 19 May (May 8 in the Julian calendar), 1713 - the capital of Russia was moved from Moscow to St. Petersburg.
  • 28 July(17), 19 May 1713 - Riga Governorate was formed on the recently acquired lands in the north-west of Russia.
  • July 28(17), 1713 - Smolensk Governorate was abolished; its territory was divided between Moscow and Riga Governorates.

I would probably go for somthing like this.

I brought the years next to the dates for people who have their prefernces set to ISO date format, and also to avoid interrupting the flow of the date. I've moved the Russia link to the first occurance, and removed some bolding. I've also removed the word "was" but that's stylistic choice.

Meanwhile in the real article I've linked the second "July 28", for the moment, the rest I leave to you. I will try to avoid these articles for now, but I suspect I've done most of them.

In the longer term I may look at getting a slightly different markup for dates.


Rich Farmbrough 09:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you must get really tired explaining the same thing over and over again, to each and every person having a question, considering the magnitude of the changes. Anyway, thank you for explaining the bigger picture. Even though I have little to no compassion to people who want to see the dates in the "28 July" format, I understand poor suckers cannot live the other way around, so having a choice is a must :)
I am still, however, a little confused about duplicate dates. The admin division articles only have a few, but I can imagine some articles would get tons of identical date references. Linking them all to achieve the desired formatting effect overloads the page with redundant links, while not linking them leads to inconsistency of date display. Do you have a solution for this problem? No need to go into fine details; if this question had already been asked, I'd appreciate if you could just point me to the right discussion thread.
Same would probably apply to Julian/Gregorian dates—linking both of them is not really the right thing to do (because they both map to only one real-life day), but, as you mentioned, not linking them may break the formatting.
Again, thank you for taking time to write a detailed explanation. I am a date-linking freak myself :), but the issues above leave me somewhat concerned. Take care!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that in an ideal world dates should only really be blue and underlined if they are strictly important. That's what I meant about a diffenet markup. I've been thinkng something like <<September 23 1999>> or <<13 September>> etc. The possibilty also exists to put functionality to deal with OS dates, japanese dates, Jewish/Muslim dates etc. Ideally it would be extended to things like <<Cretaceous>> and <<11:15 pm UTC>>. The date linking project is about 80%+ complete I reckon (altough new ones will occur), and I've had probably only 20 enquiries, in every shade of politeness! One of the intersting things is it takes me to bakwaters of the 'pedia where I've found almost every solecism possible, which is useful for planning other cleanup projects. They will not be manual though! (If they happen at all.) Rich Farmbrough 12:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Are the developers considering the new markup for that purpose yet, or is it more of a wish-list item?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Kent State shootings[edit]

You made a real mess of many dates in Kent State shootings. I've managed to remove all of the errors I found. Your little search and replace operation wikified several dates that shouldn't have been. One was inside a url (.../may4/...), and several were inside external links. One was already a link!

Thanks for fixing errors, you could have reverted the changes, or just notified me.

Since you actually call it "search and replace", I'm thinking you did this with just a text editor or word processor. As someone who was once employed to do some serious processing of legal documents in Perl, I can tell you you're going to have to do a lot better than that. Learn about Regular expressions for a start. And it's best you use a programming language, so you can construct logic when RE's are insufficient. Like making sure you're not making a link inside an existing link.

I'm using RegExps, there is a limit to what they can do.

But at least check your changes more carefully! And why are they all marked as minor? Imroy 13:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I make about 0.1% mistakes, which I think is quite good. I generally find about 1% of speedy delete pages, about 1% of incorrectly titled pages, vandalism, user signed pages and all sorts of other rubbish. They are marked minor so as not to clog up the "recent changes" page. Rich Farmbrough 17:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Please do something to prevent the script wikifying dates in signatures and so forth. Thanks. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 18:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote on my RFA[edit]

Now that the voting has officially closed, I would like to thank you very much for supporting my candidacy for adminstrator and as of 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC) I am an administrator. I will make sure to use the additional power judiciously and I welcome any comments you may have. --Reflex Reaction 19:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Date edits - problem[edit]

Hey looks like your script tripped up when it ran across Charles Cardwell McCabe

I came across it while on "random article patrol". You might want to review the edits it made to make sure it didn't break anything else. Keep up the good work. Megapixie 14:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. It was a one-off reg-ex search and replace that went wrong, so it's not likely to affect other articles - but if you find any more errors, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know that I've noticed your bot wikifying dates in people's sigs when they sign after placing a {copyvio} tag on an article. I've never been sure why we (used to?) ask people to sign the article in these cases, but quite a few people do. This isn't important, particularly, I just thought I'd let you know. The one annoyance it does cause is that it's nice to be able to get the last diff from the CP listing and, when your bot is the last diff, it means accessin the history instead. Only a minor thing. -Splashtalk 22:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, taken care of. Rich Farmbrough 10:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Metrication in the UK[edit]

Metrication in the UK. Hi, I noticed your mention of aircraft parking as an exception to metrication law. I searched UK and EU sites for references to aircraft parking but found none. This exception does not exist in any legal reference I have seen. Can you provide any more background on the assertion?

Incidentally, the mention of aircraft height in the dti reference puzzled me at first. At first glance, I thought it was suggesting an exemption for the vertical dimension of the aircraft itself. That would be a weird exception and unlikely to be particularly of concern for aviation. However, it is merely an amiguous reference to use of the foot for altitude which is mentioned in legal documents e.g. Air Navigation Order. Many thanks. Bobblewik 11:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Reduce overlinking.[edit]

Some people add brackets to full dates for preferences to work. Solitary months and solitary years don't have preferences.

Our discussion made me notice that you do a lot with dates. I have started unlinking solitary year links and solitary month links with the summary:
Reduce overlinking. Some people add brackets to full dates for preferences to work. Solitary months and solitary years don't have preferences.

People do all sorts of bizarre things with dates and it is fairly random and unsatisfactory. There was a discussion about modification of the Wikipedia software so that dates are automatically recognised. This would do away with the need for editors to apply '[['. It was taken seriously at fairly high levels but it seems to have fizzled out. Can we both raise the issue again together? Bobblewik 15:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Edward St George[edit]

Many thanks for your comments regarding Steve Sant Fournier and also on Edward St George. Edward St George was born to the Count von Zimmermann Barbaro and had everything one can imagine with a silver-lining. Though Edward after a life in the legal profession and other associations, went into an unknown and turned around a community into one of the best in the world. His website biography done by his grandson doesn't really explain all of his generosity and legacies which a GREAT man had left behind. Edward married into the English gentry and nobility but never used his background as a basis of life but through hard work and determination. If Edward had lived another several years would have received a Knight Bachelor from HM, Queen of UK and Bahamas for his efforts. Tancarville 10:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 South Asia earthquake[edit]

WikiThanks.png Thank you for your contribution at 2005 South Asia earthquake. Please keep it up!!! Pradeepsomani (talk)

03:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Happy Diwali[edit]

Tamaso ma jyotir gamaya ( Lead me from darkness to light.)
Wish you Happy Diwali

- P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.

User:Pradeepsomani 10:20, 31 October 2005‎ (UTC)

C2 aaron[edit]

Aaron Ryland aka C2 is not Aaron Elwen, the problematic user who was blocked along with his sockpuppets. DavidGerard did an IP chekc and Aaron was using the same IP as the other user and that it was at a highschool. C2 has admitted to being friends with Aaron Elwen. C2 was blocked by the autoblock probably. Jobe6 20px 23:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Hello, I stumbled across Wikiproject:major league baseball. I see that it talks about the 2005-2006 season. This seems odd to me since it seems like a season is contained within one calendar year. There is currently no discussion page to the article. The page seems like it was created by a Bot, and you have the most recent edit, so I'm guessing you are the one to ask aobut this. Should it be changed, or is it correct? Johntex\talk 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I know nothing about baseball, except what I learned form Peanuts and other American comedy. However I think the article refers to the "standings" i.e. rank which would hold between two seasons. USer:C2 aaron is a real person, a relativly new contributor, I'm not sure why this is a wikiproject: I've sort of asked him. Rich Farmbrough 23:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the informaiton. I hope User:C2 aaron is not offended I thought s/he was a bot. I'll go ask him/her about it. Johntex\talk 23:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Hmm... that's really weird. How did I make that mistake? Sure, I can undelete it for you. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVARRadioactivity symbol.png 07:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


Hey what's up? Nuthin' much here. I'm ok. New placement. Ryland 16:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


The Joey page was a G1 (No meaningful content), but was also a duplicate article. ( See Joey (film) ) I should have been more clear, and for this, I apologise. Krzypntbllr 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


Hello, I came across this 'random article' and wondered whether this was something that should be referred to AfD. But I'm new to this and wanted to get your opinion, since you had already wikified it and knew something about it.Crusading composer 03:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough.Crusading composer 21:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

6 Music, etc. programme listings put in article[edit]

Hi Rich. I saw you made a language change to the BBC 6 Music article. Fine. My question, as an author and contributor, is that someone made a change to all the BBC rock station websites BBC Radio 1, BBC Radio 2, BBC 6 Music websites, using an ip address id, to put the entire current broadcast schedule, hour by hour, in the article. I have grave doubts about this. It seems too specific and burdensome to maintain. We had simply a listing of the presenters and show names before. Also, there is an external link to the BBC stations' websites for the schedules. I don't want to edit it out unless there's some concensus feeling. I put a comment on the BBC 6 Music discussion page, ( Talk:BBC_6_Music ) but so far nothing. The poster who changed it might be well-intentioned or fiddly based on his previous contribution history ( User_talk: ). Any suggestions ? -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 22:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, very much, Rich. I'm fine with leaving it until or if things go awry. I appreciate your response. I was unsure of my Wiki-feet on this one ! We'll collectively try to keep it up to date. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 23:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK[edit]

You have expressed an interest in Wikimedia UK. Just to let you know I've posted a draft Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the proposed "Wikimedia UK" charitable company on Wikimedia UK/Memorandum of Association and Wikimedia UK/Articles of Association. It is proposed that these will receive initial approval by interested parties at a meeting on 27 November. I will put together a brief agenda for the more formal aspects of that meeting soon. Memo and Arts of Association are a company's constitution, and need to be agreed before the company is formed (though they can be changed at a later date). Please feel free to comment on the relevant talk pages (I'd rather the proposed drafts are left unedited so that it is easy to see what is going on) - particularly if there is something there that you would disagree with at the meeting, details of which can be found on the Wikimedia UK page on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Kind regards, jguk 19:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Jake Thackray[edit]

You asked about possible copyright infringement. I am a member of a Jake Thackray mailing list, and the original author of the sleeve notes is on the same list. I asked permission before I posted the entry, and sent a link to the entry to the list when I had completed it, so I don't think there will be an issue. Regards Chris Sunderland 12:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

BBC sites and internal dead links[edit]

Hi Rich. An anonymous contributor made changes to many of the BBC sites (see above) but also just made internal article links where there were no supporting articles. He internally linked all names in the BBC 6 Music Past Presenter list. And other BBC radio articles where there are more names.

This is very hard, if there is a list of, say, ten or even thirty items, which ones are articles and which internal links are dead-ends. I had left them as plain text until I or someone had written a supporting article, then would change the plaintext name into an internal link to the new article. The anonymous contributor has done it to all names in all BBC radio articles. Lots of dead article links.

One can't distinguish which of a list of thirty presenters, have an article. One now has to try all thirty.

Is there some policy, or so you have a take on it ? Should internal pointers to non-existent articles be made when there's no obvious intention of the contributor's writing the supporting article ?

I think it disturbs the reader's flow to point to a number of contiguous dead articles.

Many thanks in advance. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rich. Got your message. Many thanks for your kind response. I agree also, that a slew of dead article links obfuscate the readability of the article and drilling down for more information. I guess a couple of dead article links, as you say, may encourage people to write articles. But in some of the BBC radio pages, the anonymous user made _all_ presenter names as Wikipedia articles, which is a bit more than a couple and may cause the end-reader to give up on trying to click on other live article links in the list. It's a lot of work to go and fix them. I will look into it.
The anonymous contributor who made the dead article links is User_talk: and has been asked about vandalism, although I would hesitate in this case to say it really obviously was.
But one other thing. Is it not the intention when making an article reference Wikipedia link, as opposed to plain text, that one will write the article shortly ? Otherwise, shouldn't one just leave it as plain text until he is ready to write the article ? Thanks for your guidance and help. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rich. Many thanks for your further thoughts on the matter. I will follow your operative wisdom. I agree with all you and Sannse (sannse (talk)) said. I will work it out accordingly. I now know about the colours of article links that you and Sannse are talking about to distinguish a non-existent article pointer from a link to an existing and real article ! I hadn't paid attention to them before. Best wishes. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi Rich - I found this interesting discussion on the etymology [11] (from google's cache, as the original page appears to be defunct). It seems 'loblolly' has several meanings, including a mud hole, in which the pines sometimes grow - MPF 11:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, the AFD for this was never decided as a clear redirect. Would you agree? I'm asking as you were the closing admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-Western dates[edit]

Dude, we've had this discussion before. Non-Western dates (Empress Gemmei) do not correspond to Western dates, and therefore should not be wickified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefu (talkcontribs) 23:54, 21 October 2005‎ (UTC)

Dude, same answer.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talkcontribs) 18:53, 25 November 2005‎ (UTC)


Hi Rich,

I noticed that you moved Mojave people to Mojave. This is incorrect, because as stated on the Mojave Desert page, Mojave is used to describe the desert, while Mohave is for the tribe. I am unable to move the page to Mohave however, because the Wiki won't let me. That's why I listed it on Requested Moves and added a note about it on the dicussion page. Perhaps you would be able to vote on Talk:Mojave? Thanks. --Hottentot 03:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

So could you please move Mohave to Mohave (disambiguation) and Mojave to Mohave? Thanks. --Hottentot 00:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, you got it. Thanks! --Hottentot 00:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I just found out that there is one more: would you be able to move Talk:Mojave to Talk:Mohave? --Hottentot 06:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. :-D --Hottentot 19:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediawiki redirects for deletion[edit]

You listed these, now at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Old. I've moved all the reamining Template:VfD-<article name> into the wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ space, and deleted the redirects, can you advise what redirects are in the Mediawiki space? Rich Farmbrough 16:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Add the following code to your CSS style-sheet and then view the list of pages in Mediawiki. The redirects will be displayed in indented italics. Redirects don't belong in Mediawiki space -- it should be reserved only for system messages.
/*  Copy text starting after this line */

.allpagesredirect {
    font-style: italic;
    margin-left: 1em;

/*  Stop copying above this line */

Thanks very much for helping perform this maintenance. -- Netoholic @ 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Great job, Rich. -- Netoholic @ 03:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop. Fred Bauder 22:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mañana Será Otro Dia[edit]

  • I don't know what you mean by "stayed too long" but it's there. --Dystopos 23:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. Perhaps if I had actually looked at the history I would have known what you were talking about. Ignore me. --Dystopos 23:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Cat:British institutions ->Cat British organisations[edit]

Becasue this was done by a mechanism other than "move", history is lost. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 19:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point, though this is standard procedure at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, whether or not a bot is involved. You might want to comment on the talk page there if you think this should be changed. -- Beland 02:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your pass through the Zimbabwean history pages - much appreciated. Wizzy 06:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Rich, I am not quite sure where the contradiction is in the article that you refer to. All I can see is a slight ambiguity about the usual means of access to the crannog (canoe or causeway), but a one word change would fix this. Am I missing something? 20:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, glad to know I am not losing my marbles. I will do some checking and fix things up. Regards. 08:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of Tookie Williams[edit]

Dear Rich,

I'm not experienced at talk, so if this is in the wrong place, my apologies. Someone has moved Tookie Williams page as follows:

Thanks, Beth ... User:Beth Wellington 15:13, 14 December 2005‎ (UTC)


Hi, I have seen several of your edits where you wikify new aricles tirelessly. Keep up the good work. However, some of the new articles are copy-paste jobs from websites and hence, mostly copyvios. Please check the content for copyvio on google & msn search engines (the latter is better as it tracks obscure sites also, imo) and tag them accordingly if they are copyvios - so that we can clear copyvios asap. --Gurubrahma 06:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I was refering to Jagtar Hawara. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 05:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[edit]

Hi, Dilawar Singh Babbar seems to be a copyvio but I am not able to detect it. Sikh Light Infantry is a copyvio and I have tagged it so. Thanks for the heads up, I've failed to look at other contribs from an anon IP with copy-vio stuff. Now I know better. btw, good to see that you are getting into the numerals stuff (above). Sometime back, I had to block three users for 3RR violation (details in my latest archive, in case you are interested further and have time to kill). --Gurubrahma 16:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rich, please help[edit]

I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me recruit as many neutral and well-intending editors to the page to counter the strong and manifest bias. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

Hi Rich! Thanks for your intervention in this matter, and I hope things become normal on this article very soon. Our aim is to minimize any conflict. The change in article name was done with consensus, and was based on the following reasons:
  • "Arabic numeral" is a very common colloquial term for Hindu-Arabic (so fits one of the many criteria for naming on wikipedia), but it's not appropriate in the more formal context of the title of an encyclopedia article, which should be more rigorous in reflecting academic norms.
  • All other encyclopedias like Britannica [12], refer to the symbols exclusively as "Hindu-Arabic" everywhere they are mentioned. Articles in research papers and other encyclopedias (that are written by professional people who are rigorous scholars, who are paid a lot of money for their work, who are held accountable for what they write, and are peer-reviewed at many levels) exclusively use the term "Hindu-Arabic numerals".
  • According to another article on Britannica, titled "The Hindu-Arabic system" [13], the numerals are "commonly spoken of as Arabic but preferably as Hindu-Arabic."
  • Definitely preferred by scholars, e.g., as per Peter Wardley [14]
"`Hindu-arabic' is preferred over `arabic' as a more accurate and useful description for two reasons: first, it places primacy on the region where this system of numerical representation had its origins, the Indian sub-continent; and, second, it draws attention to the difference between the numerals currently used in Arabic countries and those adopted by Europeans after the introduction of various adaptations. The latter, of course, has become the internationally accepted system of numerical representation."
The editors who supported: User:kwamikagami, User:DaGizza, User:Frogular (changed later to weak support), User:Subramanian, User:Raj2004, User:Peyna, and User:deeptrivia (myself). User:csssclll, and User:Sam Spade were neutral. User:Vertaloni opposed at the time, but has since then accepted. User:csssclll does not dispute (at least did not dispute at that time) the name change. He wants certain things to be included in the article, and he has some other issues, like he wants Al Khwarizmi to be called Arab and not Persian. We have included many portions of his text in the article, and mentioned at many places the problems we have with some other portions. We haven't seen any reasonable responses to those objections. Thanks a lot for looking into the matter, and hoping to see some positive results soon! deeptrivia (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, Rich. I think when I last saw the naming conventions, I thought popularity was one of the many criteria to decide on a name. I'll be most willing to accept whatever the consensus is, in light of this new information. Thanks again! deeptrivia (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Please stop changing obliged to obligated. The two words do not mean the same thing in some varities of English. - SimonP 17:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

UK Disambig[edit]

Hi there. I noticed your dab changing [[British]] to [[United Kingdom|British]]. I went ahead and changed it to British as it was an event that occured in 1702. I was wondering, since from your user page I assume you're from England, if you knew if there was a custom as to what to link the UK to? Should, for example, all events between 1707 and 1801 link to [[Kingdom of Great Britain]]? Linking to [[United Kingdom]] seems a little off to me, as it didn't exist at the time, but I'm not aware of any preexisting conventions or customs. Thanks! -Rebelguys2 23:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Reticular Formation[edit]

Hornby Article I think it is April 1st.

Also, Can you help me preserve my images? Most of them are taken from 1) the Internet, 2) Books from the 60's, 3) Bear et al. and Kandel et al.

User:Iamnotanorange 16:58, 13 December 2005‎ (UTC)

Fred Phelps[edit]

I see that you recently edited the Fred Phelps article. This article is currently a nom for Featured Article. I kindly ask that you go vote on it. Thank you.

User: 19:11, 13 December 2005‎ (UTC)

Date Wikification[edit]

Hi, Rich. I don't know whether this will affect the wikifying of dates that you do, but I thought you would want to comment if it does. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Just a heads-up that Surrey10 has struck again,at some length: [15]. I've reverted this spree, but I don't know what the longer-term solution is. Mark1 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Australia First Movement[edit]

I have reverted the link away from UK for British and made it British Empire, from which they wanted to seceed. No doubt their support from Irish catholics included people sympathetic to Irish Nationalists who may have been UK citizens. Harrypotter 22:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

High Court of Justice[edit]

The High Court is not a solely Eng institution. The correct link is [High Court of Justice|High Court]. Regards FedLawyer 10:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike Neville[edit]

Never realised he had a mathematical connection. Mike Neville (anchorman) - was the PlanetMath paste a glitch? Charles Matthews 22:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike Neville (anchorman)[edit]

Hi Rich. I have a strong suspicion that in this edit at the above-named article you made a mistake by inserting the planetmath template and putting it in the combinatorics category. I removed those for now, but please let me know if I was wrong. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Exorcism video[edit]

Hi, I see that you deleted an entry that someone had appended to my Talk page. I hadn't bothered to check that video, but now I am curious. Was it porn or something? Did I miss anything worth seeing? 8-) All the best, Jorge Stolfi 16:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... Jorge Stolfi 12:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD of MDM - Consultoria e Negócios Ltda.[edit]

Rich, I nominated this page a while back; you deleted it on December 27. I just noticed it has been recreated. I tried to re-nominate it for deletion, but when I put the tag in the top of the page, it linked to the old discussion, not a new one. So I'm not sure how to do that. I'd appreciate your help. Thanks. --Thunk 17:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

An old edit[edit]

I got a chuckle out of your "wikify dates" edit of the Long March 1 rocket. But treating that as if there were a date in that name and in the link to the [[Long March 1 rocket family]] screwed things up, royally! Gene Nygaard 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks[edit]

Why again can we not personally attack people?

No, this isn't an encyclopedia, nor any attempt to build one. An encyclopedia is based on verified facts. This isn't, but rather on whoever can log on most often to their page of choice. Wikipedia has great potential, but if you allow the status quo to continue, it will never be taken seriously by anyone with any serious standing in the academic community. But back to the point, my only personal attacks were the result of what was, at root, personal attacks against myself and two other posters, essentially calling us idiots, ignoring our serious concerns about a page, and taking control en masse. Immaturity by others is the sole root of my personal attacks, not any wish by myself to attack other users without cause. Since that situation, I've been trying to show the various fallacies of the system that need to be corrected to have something worthwhile at hand.

User: 21:35, 27 January 2006‎ (UTC)

Myron Evans[edit]

Hi, I have just put up a new, shorter and more NPOV version (basically just excised some uncritical description of Evans alleged achievements). I'd love to be able to cite the source for his open letter (?) demanding election fo the Royal Society. IIRC, I found it somewhere, cited in the article, and then you moved it to the talk page? Whatever, I can't seem to find it on the web now at the pro-Evans website where I think we originally found it. Can you help me find the citation again? TIA ---CH 03:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Adolfo Farsari[edit]

Hi, Thanks for Wikifying the dates in the photographer articles I've been creating. Would you mind reading this article on Adolfo Farsari and suggesting on the featured article candidate page whether you think it's worthy of featured article status or not? No worries if not, but I'd like your sage commentary. Thanks. Pinkville 23:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV[edit]


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles[edit]

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirect of Leonard Stern (billionare)[edit]

Rich--looked at the redirect. Is there a way to rename the article as "Leonard N. Stern" and redirect it the other way. It seems to me that the current title is hardly encyclopedic. Even "(founder, Hartz Mountain Industries)" would be preferable, if the name by itself wouldn't be sufficient for people to find it. Thanks for your thoughts on this--Beth Wellington 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I follow! Was there no prior discussion on the original billionaire page. If so, it seems to be missing.--Beth Wellington 23:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My reversions[edit]

I reverted your two LoPbN edits that i've noticed so far, with a specific reason for each species of change w/in the page. If it's important enuf to you to ask why, i'll explain.
--Jerzyt 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


This is the third time I have contacted you about this issue, and you have yet to respond to me. Please stop changing obligated to obliged, the two words do not always mean the same thing. - SimonP 22:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I had left comments on your talk page twice in the past on this issue, but I guess you must have missed them. I note other users have also complained about these changes. I'm not sure if you are aware but obliged and obligated can have two different meanings. Consider these sentences:
He was obliged to her because of her actions
He was obligated to her because of her actions
They each mean a very different thing. One means he was grateful, the other that he was bound. - SimonP 22:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The two words have become quite confused, so each is often now used in place of the other and many consider them as interchangeable. However, there is no reason to make articles less precise merely because you dislike a word. This reminds me of a recent conversation on the Village Pump. There is a natural tendency for the encyclopedia to move to "lowest common denominator English," there is no reason to help it along. - SimonP 23:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I hope you are not planning on indescrimnate reversion of my edits. It seems this is just the sort of behaviour that you are accused of in arbitration. Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators#Reverting. If you want ot discuss the meanings of the word, you had only to ask, rather than just say "I am reverting a few of your edits" then block reverting. Rich Farmbrough. 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The distinction is not as clear cut as perhaps might first seem the case.
OED agrees that legal requirement is included in "oblige" (as opposed to obligate), in its lengthy articles. More accessibly the American Heritage Dictionary says " To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means." Mirrim Webster has "to constrain by physical, moral, or legal force or by the exigencies of circumstance".
Furthermore Webssters 1828 made the reverse distinction, saying of "Obligate" "Until recently, the sense of this word has been restricted to positive and personal acts; and when moral duty or law binds a person to do something, the word oblige has been used. But this distinction is not now observed."
There are of course cicumstances where "obligate" is to be preferred, in direct quotes and in the technical senses of the word from finance and more importantly biology.
Rich Farmbrough. 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Danish 1st and 2nd Divisions[edit]


You can not change links and template boxes for Danish 1st and 2nd Divisions to first and second. There are created a lot of articles for those two divisions and EVERY SINGLE PLACE are there standing 1st and 2nd, so it isn't that easy changing it. If it should be with letters, the F and S in first and second must be capitalised. Kalaha 15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


His name is Skyblue70707, almost all his contributions seem to have been related to whatever Skybluz is. He seem to spend more time on his User: page than actually contributing real content to real articles. Maybe he is confused about what Wikipedia is. His name and that almost all he edited is related to Skybluz indicate that he have an agenda, and maybe he is only interested in promoting something with a direct relation to him. He seems rather silly and suspicous. Frap 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikify dates[edit]

I noticed your date wikifcation at University of Texas at Austin, and I reverted the change because it is not consistent with the examples given at WP:CITE. Generally, dates aren't wikified unless their wikification will add something to the article. I noticed that you have made this change to many articles. I was hoping that you might hold off for a second and come discuss the policy here. — Scm83x talk Hookem hand.gif 23:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Be careful if you're using a bot or some other tool to wikify dates - one of the edits to United States Army changed "On 17 June 2,200 troops under Maj. Gen." to "On 17 June 2 200 troops under Maj. Gen." — Rebelguys2 talk 23:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah well spotted. Rich Farmbrough. 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Also note that items should be linked only in their first instance, as per your edits to Type 209 submarine and Politics of Uruguay, to name a few. Note Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and, to a lesser degree, Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). This is to allow date preferences to work. If you set them you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way. Rgds. Rich Farmbrough. 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The wiki style sheet [[16]] says that 20th century is preferred over Twentieth-Century. Why the recent changes? Rick Norwood 21:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot more work than I would be willing to do on the question of whether 20th or Twentieth is preferable. Rick Norwood 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • While I appreciate that wikification of day and name allows preferences to work, I find it annoying to find extra links. I would have thought the preference would work something like Commonwealth versus US spelling. In Australia it is 11 September. In the US it is is September 11. The wikification to set up preferences runs counter to the beginning injunction at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Avoid_overlinking_dates although I appreciate that they go on later about preferences. Is it necessary though - or is it distracting? I think the latter.--A Y Arktos 00:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
At some point wikisyntax may allow date preferences and other regionalisation to work without links. Rich Farmbrough. 10:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Please revert all the wikifications of dates done on references. It's not only confusing but useless. Jclerman 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed a problem with your edits to the Are You Are Missing Winner page here. One of the dates you wikified was emedded inside an external link (to a review of the LP), so 25 Nov. 2001 became 25 November 2001. The original format complied with that suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, so I reverted it. I appreciate the effort you're putting into this project, though - I guess that's another pitfall for you to worry about ;) Flowerparty 16:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi this edit also wikified a date in the title of some meeting minutes, ie within a web reference link, - not at all appropriate to my mind and I hve reverted. Regards--A Y Arktos 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Rich. You wikified the "accessed on" dates in the References section of Thomas Brownrigg, BBC Regional Programme and BBC General Forces Programme. I've reverted these wikifications, (a) because WP:CITE doesn't support linking of dates in the References section; and (b) because the wikified dates there are very confusing for anyone wanting to follow up the references supplied... which is the point of supplying references. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers! ➨ REDVERS 11:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Rich. I've reverted one of the two changes you made to History of ITV, because WP:CITE doesn't support linking of dates in a references section and because wikified dates there are very confusing for anyone wanting to follow up the references supplied. Cheers! ➨ REDVERS 18:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the wikify date updates on some of my recent contributions - will get it right going forward. --Damate

While the wikifying of [[## Month]] is important, in many/most cases the year should be linked, according to WP:Dates. I'd expect, for example, that a biographical article would wikify the birth and death year but few, if any, others. Perhaps the Margaret Thatcher article might have her start and end years as PM wikified, but not the year in, say, the date of a particular meeting. —Whouk (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that's clearer now. Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates and Numbered lists[edit]

Thanks for wikifying my articles & for the tips! Akina66 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lots of edits to be had[edit]

You have been hitting a bunch of my pages recently with date fixes. If you are looking for a lot of pages that need date fixing go to my user page under pages I have created and you will see many that need help. I figured I'd throw it our there while you were on a roll--Looper5920 12:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Stern (publisher)[edit]

Both Sterns have been publishers. The latter is Leonard B. Stern. There was no article, only a deadlink, so I researched and wrote one. Maybe you could do your magic and rename it and do the redirect? Thanks! --Beth Wellington 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As per your request, moved the article to "Leonard B. Stern." First time I goofed and left (writer and publisher) in move, but fixed that and edited the disambiguation page to show the new article name. Hope I did everything right. This is the first time I've ever moved an article. If you find an error, let me know.--Beth Wellington 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I just tried to edit the redirect as per yur instructions. Would you mind checking and see if it's right. Never encountered droodles Leonard B sounds nicer than Leonard N!Beth Wellington 21:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Karen Dotrice[edit]

Hi! I had to repair some of your changes to this article; dates are automatically linked in refs, and your edits made the brackets visible (for example, [[18 February]]). Write me with any questions :) RadioKirk talk to me 00:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well (and quickly) spotted, web reference templates are more of a problem for me now that references appear in the middle of articles as well as at the end. Rich Farmbrough. 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! It just so happens, I wrote the article, so it's on my watchlist; the ref templates were changing in the middle of my efforts to win FA status, so I'm familiar with the confusion ;)
Incidentally, see my question on Talk:Matthew Garber. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough. 00:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Did, and replied already ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for checking the redirect. Sorry the last note lacked punctuation--the sticky keys option invoked itself at the library and I would have had to reboot and lose what I was working on to get rid of them. Droodles are fun. There are a slew more at the droodles homepage. Did know Stern had published them, since I wrote his entry. Didn't realize Price was born in Charleston, WV. By the way, your note to the Hartz pr woman was very nicely done.--Beth Wellington 00:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


A Barnstar!
The Minor Barnstar

Pretty much every article on my watchlist has been touched by the improvatory hand of Rich Farmborough, and I feel it is time I paid my dues to he :) Thanks Rich! Jdcooper 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

External link(s)[edit]

The last time I looked, the MoS was neutral between singular and plural, explaining that though using the plural when there was only one link was inaccurate, many editors preferred it. Has this changed? I can't remember where in all the mountains of material it was. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, and sorry to have made you late... Now that you're back, the section I was thinking of was Wikipedia:External links#"External links" vs "External link":
Some editors use the header "External link" if there is only one link, but others use "External links" in all cases. There is currently no consensus on which is better. Editors who always use the plural form may prefer it for any of the following reasons:
  1. experience shows that future editors often add links without changing the section heading
  2. people may be dissuaded from adding links to a section titled "External link" since it seems that there should only be one link
  3. using "External links" gives greater stylistic consistency to Wikipedia
The converse arguments are:
  1. Wikipedia's community-editing leads to prompt correction of such oversights.
  2. There is no evidence that a significant number of people would be dissuaded from adding links. Besides, additional links would often be redundant.
  3. Use of "External links" to head a section containing a single link is fundamentally incorrect, a poor precedent to set in an encyclopedia

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's community-editing leads to prompt correction of such oversights." Yes, I thought that that was a touch optimistic (although I've corrected a fair few singulars to plurals as I've wandered around the place). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My responses to Mel[edit]

Thanks for the comment. I'm just going out, so I'll check when I get back in. Rich Farmbrough. 18:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (I'm going to be late now!) Rich Farmbrough. 18:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well "Wikipedia's community-editing leads to prompt correction of such oversights." is certainly dubious at best, there are at least 8,600 "External link" sections with more than one link! I'll concentrate on those, and a bunch of other things for now. Rich Farmbrough. 23:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff from Trey[edit]

I'm very confused. Judging from your contribs, you seem to be running a bot to change "External link" to "External links", but you didn't post your intention on Wikipedia talk:Bots to do so, and you're using your regular user account and not a bot account. Am I right on these points, or am I missing something? --TreyHarris 09:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like, based on consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bots, that you need to get approval prior to your edits whether or not you're using bot software once your edit frequency gets fast enough. You made over 500 edits in an hour, so that definitely qualifies. --TreyHarris 11:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

ditto to Trey[edit]

Hi, no I'm not using a bot, although I probably should be. I got as far as registering a seperate account and looking at pywikipediabot, but it seemed very complicated. What I generally do is open bunch (99) of tabs in Firefox and batch edit the pages - sometimes it crashes Firefox. When I'm working on dates (which I don't think can be simply robotised, to many quotes, URLs, internal links etc.) I let myself get sidetracked on other formatting issues, but these external links I want to get out of the way. If you know of a simpler bot than pywikipeidabot I'd be very interseted (oh, I've looked at AWB as well which is a great tool.) Rich Farmbrough. 10:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Of coure the big advantage with a bot is that it can be throttled to a slow rate (say 1 per min) and left to its own devices (subject to proper testing of course). Rich Farmbrough. 10:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying Dates is often unnecessary[edit]

Hi. I noticed you wikified some dates on one of the essays of Franci Fukuyama (as well as quite a few other articles). I was wondering what was the purpose? I can understand wikifying dates when they are fairly relevant to the item being discussed. In this case, the date of publication is fairly arbitrary (the magazine is only published on Sundays - thus the exact date is clearly arbitrary, and the year 2006 is so common to so many things that it is almost irrelevant) and thus it is unlikely that the user is going to click on that date for more related information. In my experience, going around wikifying dates just beacuse they can be wikified only adds irrelevant noise. It isn't that different that me wikifying random words in a sentence -- while it is possible for me to do this, do you think it adds much value or is it more of a distraction and busywork? (unsigned comment by User:Bhouston)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). This is to allow date preferences to work. If you set them you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way. It's cool if you sign messages on other people's talk pages with ~~~~. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough. 16:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Athletics Weekly[edit]

Your article Athletics Weekly has appeared in the Dead End Pages list because it is not wikified. Please consult the Wikipedia Guide to Layout for more information on how to write a good, wikified article. I would encourage you to revisit your submissions and {{wikify}} them. Thanks and happy editing! James084 03:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

External link vs External links[edit]

"Some editors use the header "External link" if there is only one link, but others use "External links" in all cases. There is currently no consensus on which is better. Editors who always use the plural form may prefer it for any of the following reasons:

  1. experience shows that future editors often add links without changing the section heading
  2. people may be dissuaded from adding links to a section titled "External link" since it seems that there should only be one link
  3. using "External links" gives greater stylistic consistency to Wikipedia

The converse arguments are:

  1. Wikipedia's community-editing leads to prompt correction of such oversights.
  2. There is no evidence that a significant number of people would be dissuaded from adding links. Besides, additional links would often be redundant.
  3. Use of "External links" to head a section containing a single link is fundamentally incorrect, a poor precedent to set in an encyclopedia"

My own view is that 'link' looks better where there is only one link; looks wrong otherwise to me. I don't feel that strongly about it; nevertheless I may revert if you change singular ones to the plural description, as I have done in a couple of the Iain Banks book pages. Why not dig out other good links, and change it from singular to plural? Or else try and edit out my POV in (for example) Dead Air which I (and everybody I know who's read it) considers his weakest book. I wrote basically the entire article and I couldn't help let it show in what I wrote.

I've done a lot of work on developing all of the Banks book entries, so maybe you could discuss in talk if you want to change formatting like this? If nothing else I think all the Banks books should be fairly consistently treated. Thanks Guinnog 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mel Etitis had already drawn my atention to these paragraphs, two comments up, and I am leaving singletons alone - there are enough misdescribed plurals(*). I would certainly not take offence at your changing back those in the Ian Banks canon where appropriate. I am afraid I have only read a few Iain Banks books (though almost all Iain M Banks) so I can't help much with that, but will do what I can. Rich Farmbrough. 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. I have retained most of them, and standardised them across all the Banks books. See what you think. Guinnog 22:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The anal wink[edit]

Thanks for putting in that link. As a physician I was bothered to see the information about misuse of a rectac exam put into a small article about a normal physiologic reflex, but with the social problem of spurious expert testimony the sad truth had to remain. The linked to article is better than the bit in anal wink. Kd4ttc 16:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I was suprised the articles weren't linked! Good to be appreciated. Rich Farmbrough. 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

These things require such care here. There is a definite way to be politically correct on Wikipedia. I started to monitor anal wink on the random chance of seeing it on articles for deletion. folks thought it was a hoax, thinking such a bizarre name couldn't be real. I stopped the deletion with an explanation and it was sitting on my watch list mostly to prevent well meaning mistakes to delete. Well, you might be aware of how political injustice stories get a passionate following around here. So to my chagrin the misuse of a rectal exam gets added to the Anal Wink article. It looks sort of goofy there, but I dared not change it lest the wrath of historically-knowledgeable-wiki-enthusiasts start an edit war. So now I can clean the article up a bit and get the relevent bits separated and stay Wiki-PC! Thus my appreciation of haveing the better link included. It was amazing to read about what mischief can be done by an "authority." Steve Kd4ttc 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)



I'm sorry you're having to go back and correct my edits involving External links. I know it should be links - my eyes just aren't picking it up. They will from now on. Thanks. Michael David 18:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

ILO redirect[edit]

Hi Rich. I noticed that you recently changed ILO to redirect to ILO (disambiguation). Previously it was set to International Labour Organization, and a {{redirect}} was on that page. It's no big deal, but are you opposed to my changing it back. After looking at the disambig page, I think it would be reasonable to assume that most ILO enquiries would be looking for the UN body. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 21:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you've got a good point about this. It could go both ways, and I'm not bothered enough to change it! (And if I did, then 6 months from now, someone else, who thinks different will talk to me about it, and I'd have to copy your note over to them... :) --Bookandcoffee 05:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing picture question[edit]

Hi there! I have contributed with the picture (that I named) File:Spotted hyena Kenya.jpg, but as you can see, it's gone. I added it to the Hyena article last year. Since I am most active on the Norwegian Wikipedia, I did not see this until today... Can you help me find out why it has been deleted? Thanks!! Could you please answer on my own discussion page? :-) Regards, Helga76 22:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinionated material in MR-GO article[edit]

If you want this material to be kept, you need to provide better source citations for the opinions expressed in it, per the verifiability policy. See Talk:Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Canal#MR-GO and the Port of New Orleans. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Shome mishtake... My edit was to make the bolded headings into real headings, wikify a few dates and remove a redundant phrase. Well done for improving the layout a good bit more, as to content, although I read one of the references, I don't feel qualified to make substantive changes. Rich Farmbrough. 00:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my apologies... the material I'm concerned about was added by, not you. Sorry. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links[edit]

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Why? Dragons flight 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wilbur Ross[edit]

I don't even want to start thinking about moving this without help. It seems we should have the main entry under his full name: Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. That was one choice among about 4 or 5 (I may be exagerating) that refer to Wilbur Ross. Or maybe we should leave it at Wilbur Ross, since it's simplest? What do you think?--Beth Wellington 17:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!--Beth Wellington 04:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing dates[edit]


Your "date correction" bot has done some damage to Yuriy Yekhanurov. Namely, it replaced parts of correct image name (i.e., within "*" in "*.jpg") with wikified dates. Can you modify the bot so that it does not replace text within [[Image:]] tag? Thanks. Sashazlv 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for spotting that. Incidentally it's not a bot, it's search and replace, I always do show changes before saving, and I normally spot problems with image names. I'm not sure if I can improve the search and replace to automatically avoid images. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough 13:48 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Deletion of Shia views[edit]

I happened by chance to notice that a user called User:Blingpling is going around deleting Shia views in articles like Abu_Bakr. It's a bit out of my area but I thought you might be interested as you edited this page JQ 05:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Please do not patronise me. Thank you. Ambi 06:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Date Discrepancies[edit]


When I come across a discrepancy in an important date (e.g. Date of Birth or Death), where the date cited in a Wiki Article differs from other reliable sources, I always enter this fact in the Discussion section of that Article, and then ask what others' thoughts are on this. What I am reluctant to do is to unilaterally change the Date myself at that time. What do you think about this? Michael David 15:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Alberto Ríos[edit]

Rich, help! I created this article and then realized that because of the accent there should be a way to look it up under Alberto Rios but I didn't know how to back that page point back to the original. I recall something about temporary pages etc. but didn't want to muck it up. I just went back there and Alberto Rios is a candidate for speedy deletion. Thanks!--Beth Wellington 01:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nmpenguin had taken care of it and now he's explained how to "do" for myself. Thanks, though.--Beth Wellington 17:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking dates[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers: Please advise regarding your linking to arbitrary dates. This does not appear in line with the rationale expressed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers#Avoid overlinking dates, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), & Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. -- Krash (Talk) 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Krash. The overlinking aspect refers to things like October or October 2004 or October 2004 or 17th Century or 421 BC. Full dates like 11 September 2004 or September 11 will show up differently depending on how each user has his preferences set, and should be linked where they appear in article txt.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Usage of links for date preferences. This is to allow date preferences to work. The section Avoid overlinking dates starts If the date does not contain a day and a month,. Rich Farmbrough. 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Be that as it may, I think that Wikipedia would benefit from a less liberal application of the Manual of Style, remembering to only make links that are relevant to the context. Also, you misrepresented the quotation from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers#Avoid overlinking dates). The complete quotation should read:
"If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so."
-- Krash (Talk) 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so." This is exactly the point I was making. "simple months, years, decades and centuries" is the subject of that paragraph, not full dates. Rich Farmbrough. 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey Rich, I feel as if you are taking the rules too literally. If you are going to fix up dates please do it in the articles you are making other contributions to. I feel as if you are doing some type of strange "drive by overlinking" which you can just barely justify. I notice on this page that you have gotten more than a few complaints about this issue as well as a few warnings. --Ben Houston 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well over several ten of thousands of edits, I've probably had a dozen "complaints" and the same number of queries. Some of the complaints were justified (editing errors), which I have fixed, and some were not (almost all of those were happy after a simple explanation). Rich Farmbrough. 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Krash. I came here to post a comment about your linking-dates in the external links for Sousveillance, and saw there were already some comments on the topic of over-linking. (imho) The spirit of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers#Avoid overlinking dates) rule, is to only link a date, if the date is an important aspect of the context. sep'11, jul'4, dec'24, jan'1, etc could/should be linked. But it's not useful if the date is arbitrary (a date of album release, article publication, etc). --Quiddity 22:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this is to allow date preferences to work. If you set them you will see 11 September and September 11 ([[11 September]] and [[September 11]]) the same way. The MoS is very clear. Section 1.2 [17] explains date formatting. Section 1.2.1 is a caveat warning against linking just years or just months or just year-month combinations - which I generally remove when I come across them. Rich Farmbrough. 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Understood. I think in the case of the sousveillance date-link, i'll just remove the date altogether, as it doesnt add anything or have relevance. thanks :) --Quiddity 23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

While I welcome constructive contributions to the Joan of Arc article, I believe your contribution violated the clause at WP:NOT about random collections of unrelated information. When a page gets cluttered with trivial links it becomes harder for readers to glean meaningful information from chaff. It goes much too far to Wikilink every date where I confirmed a site access throughout a list of nearly seventy footnotes. You're an active editor and I'm sure usually a very productive one, but I see you've already disregarded feedback on this issue from several other editors.

I cannot share the opinion that every Wikipedia editor who does not complain is delighted with your work. I wasted half an hour this evening removing link clutter, time that I had planned to spend adding new footnotes and correcting some syntax problems in the article text. Then I visited your talk page, read how you dismissed several other comments, and almost decided it would be a further waste more of my time to give you any input. Rein this activity down to a reasonable level. You've gone overboard. 04:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The matter of Dr. James R. Russell's article[edit]

Hi Rich. Perhaps you can help out. I wrote Professor/Dr. James R. Russell's article as he is indeed a world known scholar in his field and very notable. I checked that his colleague, Dr. Wheeler Thackston had an article, which he has since 2004. They are both in the same department at Harvard, and on comparable par. Dr. Russell's opus "Zoroastrianism in Armenia" is a major work published by Harvard University amongst other works of his. The article is not a vanity article and Dr. Russell who occupies the Mashtots Chair in Armenian Studies, at Harvard University, which is a very prestigious chair, is more than noteworthy. As much as Dr. Wheeler Thackston is. Dr. Russell's article is James R. Russell. I have no idea who User_talk:Dsc is and why the person flagged it. The stated objections are not valid. The warning should be removed. I don't know where else to turn to. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich for getting back on this situation. I will go do some other things. I hope someone keeps and eye on this. It's nutty. Cheers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 22:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rich. Thanks for your kind message. It isn't really resolved. User:Sannse formerly of the Wikipedia arbitration committee had removed the warning in the light of reason, and the person User:Dsc has slapped on the warning again on Dr. James R. Russell's article without any discussion. I do hope this gets resolved but (a) I don't feel the warning is justified and it should not be there (b) the person has taken no time to discuss it as per your suggestion, and (c) I have no easy internet access on this end due to serious outages, and (d) the objection by the person does not stand up to reason and a test. I am writing this from a stand-up kiosk in a library. If you could do something appropriate, I would be appreciative. The person is acting in my opinion, irrationally. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rich. Thanks for getting back to me. The debate on the Armenian Genocide has nothing to do with Dr. Russell's erudition and scholarly accomplishments. Plus, the website cited, is unsigned, and can't be rationally used for the article's merit, which is based on Russell's scholarly work. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 22:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rich. See my comments there also, when you have a chance. I put more into the discussion with a level head. I am not part of nor versed in the Armenian debate. I take your points on the further citations on the articles and ISBN on the books. One has to chase these things down a bit when one has time. Thanks again. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 23:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rich. Thanks for your help on the matter. I hope it works out for all concerned in the middle to long run. Much appreciated. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rich. I fixed up the references, citations, ISBN numbers and other loose ends as per your suggestion. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 02:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Rich. Thanks for your kind help and suggestions. I think it might be all right now. It was a lot of work. As for a GFDL photo ... that might be a little tricky, but will look into it when I can. ;) Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


This message has just appeared on my Watchlist Page.

"Wikipedia e-mail confirmation has been enabled. To receive Wikipedia e-mail, you must go to Special:Confirmemail, request a code, and follow the link in the e-mail."

I followed the directions & received instructions to Log in; I did this; nothing further has happened. What am I missing? What does this mean? I'm still new here. Michael David 18:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael, this means that Wikipedia now "knows" you really have access to that email account. Imagine if someone put an enemy's email address and went around insulting people, to generate badmail. Or even f someone simply mistypes their email address. I don't know why this message was put on the watchlist, though, seems like a funny place for it. Rich Farmbrough 23:08 2 March 2006 (UTC).

Question about banner on my Watchlist[edit]

Hi Rich. This is a silly question, I'm afraid. When I bring up my Watchlist, this banner apppears :

"Wikipedia e-mail confirmation has been enabled. To receive Wikipedia e-mail, you must go to Special:Confirmemail, request a code, and follow the link in the e-mail."

Is this just a general announcement which requires no action on my part, or is it saying something which requires my action ? Does it mean someone has requested to email me ? I don't have it setup for email intentionally. Thanks in advance as ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich for your kind response. I will look into it further. Bests --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Working Families for Wal-Mart[edit]

Rich, Cmh has POV problem with a story I started. When you have time, could you take a look and see what needs to be done to remove the tag. Thanks!--Beth Wellington 03:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Cmh removed the tag. Thanks! I've already thanked him on his talk page.--Beth Wellington 21:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In a related issue, there's a vote to delete an admittedly rough article (but only a day old) that's odd, in that the arguments are poorly researched and all in favor of deletion. Could you take a look-see? Thanks!--Beth Wellington 05:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. By the way, I didn't know you were in England until I saw the category at the bottom of your user page. Love the pig Latin and old English babel boxes. What a hoot! --Beth Wellington 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]


Thank you for the explanation of that e-mail message on my Watch List. It does make sense after all. My work (in many ways, life) has been sitting across from flesh and blood people trying to help them untangle the emotional knots they have found themselves in. There I'm comfortable because it's familiar to me. It's taking me longer to be comfortable sitting across from a machine that is essentially 1s & 0s. I am comfortable with the information within Wikipedia, where my task is to extract that information and, in my own way, hopefully improve on it. I saw that message & wondered what it was wanting me to do & why. Thanks for straightening it out for me. The wetter my feet get at this, the more comfortable I feel with the structure, the more I will be able to contribute to the content. Right now I'm still learning. Michael David 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Big Sur[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to read and make some fixes on this article. It's much appreciated.Scooterboss 11:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please review[edit]

Paphos The Arsenio Hall Show Robert Scott (VC) Max Mosley Rich Farmbrough 21:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Standardisation units, imperial, metric etc[edit]

Hi Rich, As you describe yourself as a fixer, UK based & seem to have experience with bots to fix things, I wonder if you can help...

During recent discussions about featured article status for Chew Valley Lake I was challenged that the units (particularly for volume, but it applies to other areas) used in the article discriminated against some users eg;

"Even worse. "Customary" units are not provided throughout. " & "The other is the use of imperial gallons and cubic meters, neither of which are used in the U.S. (but who really wants to see acre-foot). Rmhermen 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Acre-foot certainly makes no sense, this unit isn't used in the UK as far as I know. Water volumes here are conventionally quoted as so many million gallons (Imperial ones of course, not US gallons). Cubic metres (not meters :-) might be a good choice. What a fine muddle we get into over units! Chris Jefferies 17:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC) But you see that you are giving British English readers two ways to understand the volume but giving American English readers zero. That doesn't seem right. Rmhermen 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)"

Do you know of any policy on this & could your bot (or any other) semi-automatically standardise them & if necessary put in the volume measure in the other units expected? Rod 12:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Smackbot: "Agjacent" counties[edit]

Hi there, I noticed that SmackBot had made some automated changes to Rockland County, New York, and in looking at them I realized that "Adjacent counties" was changed to "Agjacent counties." A cursory glance at other county articles that the bot edited shows that the mistake was made in several places. Just thought I'd let you there a quick way of going back and fixing? Or do each of them need to be corrected individually?  :: Salvo (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix them. Rich Farmbrough 08:18 6 March 2006 (UTC).
Thanks :) :: Salvo (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Genocidal Massacre[edit]

Not to be aggressive Rich, but you're removing the Warrigal Creek massacre from the Genocidal Massacre page because "it's not in the time frame of the UN" is just plain arrogant and ignorant. Firstly, this doesn't change the fact it qualifies as an incident of Genocidal Massacre. Secondly, by your logic, the Armenian Genocide should be removed because it took place 30 years before the founding of the UN. I don't think you'd go as far as to do that. If you wish to talk about this further, please message me on my talk page. Evolver of Borg 22:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means remove the Armenian incident, which should not be on the Genocidal massacre page. I moved the text to Warrigal Creek and did some research on the subject. For reaons I forget I didn't have time to re-write the apalling paragraph that was there, but I did put some references at the foot of the article, to help anyone who feels like creating a proper well sourced article. Rich Farmbrough 16:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
You understand when I say the Armenian Genocide I'm not referring to the Genocidal Massacre page but Genocide in general. The same principles apply to both. Evolver of Borg 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, then the same principle doesn't apply. This is about what belongs on which page, not what belongs on the 'pedia. Warrigal did not have a page before I created it. Rich Farmbrough 00:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Wait wait wait. I think I'm confused. What exactly are we talking about, 'Warrigal Creek' or 'The Warrigal Creek Massacre'? If we're talking about the creek, good on you for writing the article. If we're talking about the massacre, then I'm confused about what exactly we're discussing. Are we saying that the massacre should remain on a seperate page and not the creek page, or something else? Slightly confused Evolver of Borg 01:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
My opinion is that if enough data for Warrigal Creek massacre to be a decent page can be found it should have it's own page. Ohterwise a section in Warrigal Creek. I think the information should be sourced, and if possible from (checked) primary sources. I've found the name of the stockman (?) who was killed, but I don't think my source is reliable enouigh to go in the article. Perhaps contemporary newspaer accounts exist? Rich Farmbrough 01:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I've just "googled" "Warrigal Creek massacre -wikipedia" almost the only non-wikipedia refernces are to Gadener's article and the ref I cited above. Rich Farmbrough 01:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I found out about the massacre about a year ago when I undertook a genocide studies course, but I think my notes were what I wrote down on the page. Could be more though. I'll check the resource we used. Evolver of Borg 05:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Was Warrigal Creek never moved in the end, or has it just been reverted to? If the term "genocidal massacre" refers specifically to breaches of the UN Convention, then it should not be listed on that page... Nicolasdz 09:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Rich, I have no particular information, but the date of the event seems to make it impossible to be a "genocidal massacre." Nicolasdz 19:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Rich, for now, then, let's leave it be, and as soon as I have time I'll dig up some other examples, move the "Warrigal Creek" stuff to a separate article, and create a link in the main genocide article to "Genocidal Massacre."

SmackBot re: Henry the Navigator[edit]

Your bot is making edits like this one: [[18]] which have no impact on the article as it appears to the user, nor on the workings of Wikipedia. These are merely stylistic preferences being enforced by a bot. This wastes storage space (for the edit entries in the database), bandwidth (for the edits themselves), and degrades Wikipedia's performance for no return on that investment. Please, tune your bot so that it does not make stylistic edits without a concrete benefit. -Harmil 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harmil,
Well, spotted, that edit should have changed "Early Life" to "Early life" (process already fixed), I think no more invisible edits should occur. I'll check a sample of a hundred, if you see any, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 18:00 5 March 2006 (UTC).

This edit moved the stub template to a place three (!) lines below the interlanguage links instead of leaving it above the categories where it belongs. AFAIK interlanguage links should always be the at the bottom, below categories and person data.—Wikipeditor 13:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be standard AWB ordering. It makes sense because the stub template will, presumably, be removed, so having it easy to find is a good idea. I'm not sure if there are any guidelines about it, I'll investigate, and ask on the AWB page. The two blank lines seem odd. Rich Farmbrough 15:13 7 March 2006 (UTC).
The extra lines allow for an icon on the stub which otherwise can overwirte text. Rich Farmbrough 12:18 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Alcoholism article conflict[edit]

Hello Rich, I suppose it was inevitable. I find myself in the first conflict since coming to Wikipedia. It involves the Article on Alcoholism, most specifically the Section headed ‘Alcoholism as a disease’. This Section is extremely biased and presents facts that are simply not correct. For example, the paragraph “Currently there are no validated medical or scientific procedures or tests to determine if one has the so-called disease of alcoholism or if one is a carrier.” The use of the phrase ‘so-called’ speaks for itself, and, this is simply not true today. I attempted to correct it, but a person who identifies himself as “David Justin” immediately reversed my edit. His name is in red, and he does not have either a User or Talk Page. I made my case on the ‘Alcoholism” Discussion page under the heading ‘Alcoholism labeling>be careful’ in which I included this:

'Today, and for some time now, there are highly accurate tools and other instruments that can accurately diagnose the disease of alcoholism. This is but one of many: SUDDS-IV.'

David Justin's response was incomprehensible gibberish.

AND: the final paragraph of the main Article includes this:

The idea of "alcohol as a disease of the community" or an "environmentally mediated or caused disease" is not as widely discussed or I am not aware of it as much. I see alcohol as an "environmentally caused disease" in many cases.’

The use of the word “I” in an encyclopedia article is unheard of, and I believe represents one person’s very biased POV.

A great deal of progress has been made in the area if alcoholism diagnosis. I believe the Article in Wikipedia should reflect this fact.

I will not become involved in a debate with someone I know nothing about, or cannot communicate with directly. I do want this important Article to be accurate, and up to Wikipedia’s high standards. How do you think I should proceed from here?

Michael David 13:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally I would appreciate it if both of you would realize alcohol dependence is not a disease. Alcohol dependence can be treated in a couple of weeks tops and then the person is no longer alcohol dependent. If alcoholism is a disease we should be able to detect it whether we are drinking or not. In fact if it is a disease even though we have never had a sip of alcohol, we should be able to test and detect it. Does such a test exists? No. Can one take a blood test to determine if they have this so-called disease? And your link is not diagnosing a disease it is about diagnosing alcohol dependence. Alcohol dependence is not a disease.
And an "environmentally caused disease"? Is that like second hand smoke? A wiki article is not the place for you to promote your personal belief and definitions regarding alcoholism.
I just reworked the test part I added to the article in a fashion I think makes it more clear. Instead of removing my comments over and over how about discussing it on the talk page? And if this is an issue you want to pursue please find me a test for the disease of alcoholism. I'd like to take it to make sure I do not have it. In fact I'd like my 2 year old daughter to take the test to make sure she is nto walking around with this disease. If she has a disease called alcoholism I'd want her to know about it sooner than later so she can plan to abstain permanently.
Finally, the SUDDS-IV diagnostic criteria does not even mention the word disease. It talks about alcohol and drug addiction/dependence. Mr Christopher 16:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your input regarding the ‘Alcoholism as a Disease’ issue. I have been a practicing psychotherapist for 40+ years, with a subspecialty in the Dependencies. I have seen tremendous progress in that time with professionals researching and finally solving some very touchy issues regarding the use and misuse of psychoactive chemicals & their effects on a person. The critical part of the ‘disease concept’ is that it removes this disorder from the hands of those who would paint it as simply a problem with the person’s behavior. Categorizing it that way has proven not only problematic with the self-concepts of the patient; frankly it has given ammunition to those who have tried to stand in the way of adequate funding for the research. I am not going to quibble with anyone over whether it’s a disease or not. The only person who needs to understand is the patient. All else is bullshit. Michael David 18:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

smack bots change in Maruti Omni[edit]

Your bot tried to do something unsucessfully and had to rv its action. If you can tell me what 'RM caps in section headers' means I'll do it manually. thanks.

--hydkat 06:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, and for letting me know. Bluebot had already made the change, the bad change is a bug I think, and I will pass back to be fixed. Rich Farmbrough
Thanks for your reply. But you didn't tell what 'RM caps in section headers' means... I only have an assumption to go by :(.

--hydkat 11:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove capitals in section headers.  :) I guess you assumed right. Rich Farmbrough 11:39 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Alcoholism Article Thoughts[edit]


You’re right, there are two Sections entitled ‘Social Impact’. They both contain similar material. I believe one could be worked into a Section focusing on ‘Public Health Issues’.

Actually that would be merely like trying to rearrange the passengers on the Titanic hoping this would keep it from sinking. The fact of the matter is the entire Article needs a major reworking. It is trying to do & be too many things. The result: it merely creates confusion about a very important subject.

When I read the Article’s present form, I try to imagine an adolescent trying to make sense of their family life; knowing Dad or Mom is drunk all of the time; has heard the word ‘alcoholism’ used in school, and reaching for an encyclopedia to find out what it’s all about. I am in no way suggesting the encyclopedia should be geared to adolescents, but the average reader should be able to readily understand and to follow it. Anything beyond that and you have a textbook.

To me, an encyclopedia Article about a subject should state the current definition of that subject; a history of the birth, evolution and impact of that subject; and references to more in-depth materials the reader can go to if they want to learn more. It should never offer opinions, or even hint of bias. All this, of course, without being so dry it crumbles before you eyes. This is what writing style is all about.

Again, the present Article on ‘Alcoholism’ needs a great deal of work if it is to be helpful to anyone really trying to learn about it.

Be healthy. Michael David 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot: Parsis != Persian people[edit]

On 7 March Smackbot apparently added a bunch of people that are Parsis to Category:Persian people. Thats a far stretch. Calling Parsis "Persian people" is like calling descendants of the pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower "Britons". -- Fullstop 09:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Can you give me an example? Thank you. Rich Farmbrough 16:08 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, my mistake. Mea culpa. -- Fullstop 16:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed[edit]

Rich, J.C. Penney (the store) and J. C. Penney (the man) are so close it seems like there should be some pointer between them. Thanks.--Beth Wellington 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. My two cents (pennies?)--while it may be the usual practice, it is an arcane one which makes it hard for the non-editng user to find the correct content. (and hard even for the novice-editor user). Especially since there's little visual difference to the reader between the two. Don't know if those who do such things would want to consider this usage. Alternatively, I might have filed J. C. under his full name with a redirect from the initials. 'Nough said. So, are you this Richard Farmbrough] or is it just a common name?--Beth Wellington 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Interesting. I believe that ImDB allows juried submissions (I tried to straighten out the double entries on Leonard B. Stern). Of course, your common name might rule you out! If the information is readiliy accessible, I'd be glad to advise the Grand Poobahs over there.--Beth Wellington 17:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Corporate vandalism of Leonard N. Stern[edit]

Rich, this article has an odd edit on February 8 that eliminated all mention of impropriety. Also, this is the same man, as in the entry Leonard N. Stern. They need to be merged, rather than disambiguated by the tag billionaire. Help! --Beth Wellington 05:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank Rich. Won't have time to look at corporate bio today, but will try to work on it next week. --Beth Wellington 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rich, Hartz has vandalized the page again, completely replacing it with its own content. Apparently, a stronger warning is in order?--Beth Wellington 21:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this so quickly!--Beth Wellington 22:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Deborah Stone went in again on 2/21/06 and vandalized this article, despite your polite request on 2/17 not to do so. Called it a "minor edit." This makes three times. Any way to stop this from happening?--Beth Wellington 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I check on it periodically. Blocking might work or perhaps she'll register for another account, like some here do.--Beth Wellington 17:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush[edit]

Dear Rich,

When I went to add citations in the press today in response to the NSA issue, I noticed that there had been a POV warning on this article [19]forever. Any suggestions?

Thanks, Beth --Beth Wellington 09:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the POV tag, Rich. We'll see if it remains gone.-- 02:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Mirrorvax [20] added another warning to the site as soon as you took it down. This is really frustrating. What original research? This tagging seems to rise to vandalism. Any suggestions. If you check in the discussion, folks have already had extended discussions with him that have been unproductive. --Beth Wellington 02:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rich,

In the support for impeachment section, why is a subsection on media editorial by a reputable business magazine less encyclopedic than a subsection on entertainers? I don't want to get into an editing war that approaches a 3r infractin. Would you mind weighing in on Stbalbach's deleting this content to the discussion page? Thanks!--Beth Wellington 04:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rich,

[[21]] today by anonymous User: again tags this article. Could you take a look. Thanks.--Beth Wellington 18:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

2 Bot Visits[edit]

Hi, A page I created has had it's last two edits made by AWB assisted robots Bluebot & Smackbot ([22], [23]). It's good that you guys are cleaning up but couldn't you colloborate? What Smackbot did in visit 2, could have been done by Bluebot in visit 1. --kingboyk 02:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is some overlap between the tasks they've worked on - and the timings. SB is working on Caps in Headings BB is working on many different problems with "See also" and "External links". That's why we hit the same article. In theory it shouldn't matter because if the change is already done the second bot will do nothing - but we had slightly different settings/versions so a small change occurred. I've upgraded to the latest version since that run, so I hope that will not happen again. I've also requested a feature to reduce solely minor edits. Rich Farmbrough 11:27 8 March 2006 (UTC).
I believe Bluebot and Smackbot are owned by two different users. On the other hand, I also had a watched page visited by both bots, both commiting a minor error. I've detailed it below:
The following code:
<sup>[[Aleut Restitution Act of 1988#External Links|[1]]]</sup>
As you can see above, Bluebot (or Smackbot) judged [1]]] as a mistake, and fixed it by changing it to [[1]]. However, the singular [ and ] around 1 are decorative, and the other two ]]'s right of the "1" are to end the internal link.
Just to let you know about this, but on the other hand, I appreciate the work Smackbot has done! Kareeser|Talk! 06:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This is very useful, and I will pass it back to the developer User:Bluemoose. Rich Farmbrough 11:27 8 March 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for that, and for your reply on my talk page. --kingboyk 19:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oregon falls (sic)[edit]

Dear Rich, Yes i would just like to know Why you deleted my page. Oregon Falls is a very good band in fact it was my cousin dayton niemans band i know alot about that band and wasted alot of my time trying to make that page. I dont know who you are to delet a perfectly good page.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poonch12 (talk • contribs) .

Answered on your talk page. Rich Farmbrough 19:32 8 March 2006 (UTC).
Hope you don't mind Rich, but I userfied it. It was still a valid speedy deletion and had no incoming links. He can work on it in his user space until he's satisfied WP:MUSIC and everyone's a winner :-) --kingboyk 19:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
NO probs. Rich Farmbrough 20:07 8 March 2006 (UTC).

SmackBot changes to aircraft articles[edit]

Please keep SmackBot away from aircraft articles using the airtemp template for specs. This template requires the use of </li> and <li> tags to properly format specs not included in the template. When SmackBot replaces these tags with the asterix, it messes up formatting. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 06:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, easily done. Rich Farmbrough 11:28 8 March 2006 (UTC).
P.S. AWB has been updated to avoid this problem in future. If it happens again please let me know. If you think there's a significantnumber of damaged articles, let me know and I will try to find them all and revert. Rich Farmbrough 17:24 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Only a couple of articles were affected but I wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks for taking care of that! - Emt147 Burninate! 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

An 'in depth' response[edit]


(I never know where to post a direct response, on your page or mine – please bear with me, I’m still a kid here!)

No way did I mean to suggest controlling the depth of an Article. In some of my writings a person needs scuba gear. What I really mean involves the structure. As you know in technical writing there is first an abstract, where the reader can grasp the essentials of the subject; this is followed (if they care to go on) by the full text that includes all of the material. Perhaps in Wikipedia it could go something like this: The first that appears after a search would be the Main Article page containing the basic information relating to that subject; then, attached to each paragraph or section could be a ‘read more’ link by which they could go to another page that covers the deeper and more esoteric information. If I read you right, that’s what you were suggesting. I agree with you completely.

Be healthy. Michael David 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Brimingham_Central_Library_fire_jan1879.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Brimingham_Central_Library_fire_jan1879.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice of response[edit]

Hi, you asked me a question and I responded. Many thanks. bobblewik 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


See User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. Regards bobblewik 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

September 11 Wiki[edit]

Sounds good to me. If you can, please ask for some who have been active over there to support your nomination. If that doesn't happen I'll use discretion to do it in a few weeks until there is some community view on whether you should be one there. Jamesday 23:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Smackbot, Caps and Dates[edit]

In its task of removing caps in headers, Smackbot is changing "Middle Ages" to "Middle ages" (as on the page List of French language authors) It seems to me the expression "Middle Ages" demands caps (see the article Middle Ages). On the same page Smackbot also changed the heading "20th Century" into "Twentieth century", which would be fine... if it changed all the other sections too (19th Century... 16th Century...), instead of leaving the page a hybrid of date formats. Should I go back in and change them all? -- NYArtsnWords 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. You might be right about the Middle Ages capitals - bother! I've done the rest of the centuries on that page. A mixed style page was a "known risk" - there are many thousand section headers on WP with unnecessary caps, I did the 15 most common recently, and am now doing the next 200+. Twentieth Century was in this batch, the others weren't, I guess I should have included them anyway, had I thought of it. Rich Farmbrough 01:11 9 March 2006 (UTC).
PS I'll check the MA thing and revert them if necessary. Rich Farmbrough 01:11 9 March 2006 (UTC).

While your making corrections, your bot ate a capital "C" in an Supreme Court "Opinion of the Court" subhead. Those should stay capitalized as well, since we're talking about "the Court" (but there was only the one digested). Cheers! BD2412 T 04:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough 20:59 9 March 2006 (UTC).

For Jesseca Turner, SmackBot is adding back-slashes to the section heading. See this edit. --Rob 11:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorted. Rich Farmbrough 11:49 10 March 2006 (UTC).


A Barnstar!
The Surreal Barnstar

I hereby award you (well, actually your SmackBot) this barnstar for all the constant edits that it's been doing to articles I've worked on. While I'm glad it's cleaning up my editing detrius, I can't help but feel that it's stalking me for some reason. ^_^;;; み使い Mitsukai 15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot and George Jones[edit]

SmackBot broke a link in the George Jones article. [24] Everything is back to normal now, but you might want to somehow try to prevent the bot from doing that to other articles. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 22:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, that's a potential problem with AWB. I've reported it, and no doubt it will be fixed RSN. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 23:02 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Also broke a link in the YMCA article[25] Cometward 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, AWB is now fixed, so I'd better find a way of identifying any past errors. Not to hard I think. Rich Farmbrough 22:02 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Suicide sub-categories[edit]


Something to think about.

I am currently writing a journal article on ‘creativity and suicide’ - exploring why creative persons take their own lives. As a part of my research I have constructed a rather extensive database of persons in history who have committed suicide and, importantly, the methods they have used. I know Wikipedia has an extensive list of persons who have committed suicide and, in some cases, the method. As I have been cruising Wiki I have been adding the method of suicide information to its Articles. Is there any way, or, for that matter would Wikipedia be interested in, somehow also creating a separate listing category based on the method of suicide. In the cases of drug OD I have also subcategorized the type of drug. Perhaps it could be done in the form of additional categories, e.g.: ‘Persons who have committed suicide by gunshot’. I still have a lot to learn about the mechanics of Wikipedia. I searched it to see if I could find any such categories, but couldn’t find any. If such categories exist, please let me know. If not, I would be willing to help with a project to create them.

Be healthy. Michael David 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A note about AWB[edit]

See this edit by SmackBot - It did nothing but decapitalise "Trading Card Game", which is a proper noun. Are jobs like this suitable for a bot? --Celestianpower háblame 16:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know about this. You make two points, firstly that "Trading Card Game" is a proper noun. Certainly you could argue for "Pokemon Trading Card Game", "Neopets Trading Card Game" or "YU-GI-OH! Trading Card Game" needing capitals, I think it's harder to argue for the =term on it's own. Similarly I have a copy of "The Hobbit, the Book of the Film", I would not talk about it as the Book (that's reserved for THHGTTG or holy books :). To a lesser extent the same applies, for example, to Pepy's, one could say "in his Diaries" or equally reasonably "in his diaries"
Your second point, whether is this a job for a bot, is simpler. The bot isn't mindlessly replacing all section headings with slightly lower case variants, it's currently only changing about 200 specific headings - like "Selected Filmography" to "Selected filmography". Of course there's always the risk that someone's written book called Selected Filmography, but that is within the bounds of acceptable risk, IMHO. Rich Farmbrough 16:58 8 March 2006 (UTC).
Sorry, I got my wires crossed. The Pokemon ones are the only article with "in the trading card game" headers I assume - would it be possible to change this to "In the Pokémon Trading Card Game"? --Celestianpower háblame 17:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would be happy to do that, probably tonight, maybe tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough 17:05 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Rich - also in this edit, you removed the spaces in the section headings and after each "*" (bullet point). I feel like those spaces help the readability of the articles source... and they don't affect how the page renders. Please don't change them arbitrarily. -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the decrease in readability when editing (per [26] and related edits). Some of us don't have large screens and/or perfect eyes (any more!) — Bellhalla 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
OK since several people feel this way, I've turned of reduction in surplus white space. Rich Farmbrough 20:18 9 March 2006 (UTC).
Have you? I've just had Ethotoin and Felbamate touched by Smackbot (11th March). As far as I can see, the only reader-visible change was from "Side Effects" to "Side effects". I have no problem with that change if it brings the article into line with the MOS. However, there are over a dozen other invisible changes to each article, which make the Diff extremely hard to compare. These all involve whitespace that (AFAIK) only concern editors. Is there even any official consensus regarding which whitespace style is correct? I like to check "bot" changes as sometimes they do screw up the article (particularly foreign words) but having to compare whitespace changes is tedious in the extreme. In addition, it can make it near impossible to compare two human versions if a bot has done this much work in-between. Please, please change your bot so that the only diffs I see are ones that make a difference to the visible article, and only changes that are sanctioned by the MOS. I do appreciate that bots are useful (especially the ones upgrading my citation templates) but these hidden changes are quite harmful to the ability of editors to use the history mechanism and waste our time. Colin°Talk 10:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, for the rest of the capitalisation run, I've turned it off, and this time I've saved the settings.... Rich Farmbrough 10:57 11 March 2006 (UTC).

Rambot demographics to past tense[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you've done a bit of work with some of the articles that were originally created by Rambot, putting the Demographics section into the past tense. I thoroughly agree that these look ridiculous in the present tense, and it's something that I've been doing as well, when I've hit the Random Article button and come across them. However, it's a pretty thankless task, and even with both of us plugging away, it'll take a while to get through all 30,000! Is this something that SmackBot would be able to help out with at all? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I shall let them go for now, then, and let the bot handle them in its own time. Regarding complaints, you might just want to be aware of this, though I've also had no complaints about actual changes I've made. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Felbamate rm caps in section header[edit]

Would you please revise the edit you made 10:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC). You have made "U.s." and "U.k.". If you are using a bot to do this, it should not be done under your account (I believe). If you are doing it manually then you are being rather careless. You are responsible for your edits regardless of how they are performed. Colin°Talk 11:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Further to my response on your talk page ("Of course"), please note that there is a currently a problem with Wikipedia displaying the wrong version of articles. I've just been around the block making the same changes several tiems because there's this problem, probably synchronising between the squid caches. That's probably why I didn't see my mistake. Rich Farmbrough 12:11 11 March 2006 (UTC).

See also your change to Epilepsy 11:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC). I strongly encourage your to use "Show changes" before submitting your edits. Colin°Talk 13:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Show changes wasn't helping, because the version being compared with was wrong. Believe me, I looked at almost every diff of every edit I made to those pages to try to work out what was happening - and I am not a novice at using Show changes or history. Rich Farmbrough 17:47 11 March 2006 (UTC).

Re: Anna Hazare[edit]

Hi there, I didn't add the inuse template to this article. Rupakbiswas did in this edit. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 17:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for drawing my attention to the existance of inuse templates though, I hadn't known about them before now. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 18:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Stub template should go after categories[edit]

In this edit you moved the stub template before the categories. This should not be done, as the stub category is less important than the others. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How very odd. Further up may talk page you will see flamage because stubs went to the end, which is what has always happened if the "sort" option is on. I shall investigate further. Rich Farmbrough 18:42 11 March 2006 (UTC).
In your next edit you wikilinked a date that's part of an external link. That one is somewhat my fault though, as I forgot to add a references section. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've found the reason, the template was "California State Highway Stub" instead of "California-State-Highway-stub" I'm fixing about 100 pages, and moving the sutbs to the end. In at leat one case [27] it has been in the wrong position since day 1. Rich Farmbrough 12:37 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Smackbot alphabetizing categories[edit]

On pages for sports players, for examples Barrin Simpson, I think it would be a good idea if you did not alphabetize the categories. The categories were listed in a specific order for clarity, first the ones dealing with birth year and living people category, followed by the teams they have played for, sometimes in chronilogical order, sometimes not. By alphabetizing them it makes the categories look like a random mismash. Qutezuce 06:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't scope it by article type, so for the rest of the capitalisation run, I've turned it off. Rich Farmbrough 10:55 11 March 2006 (UTC).
On the other hand, compare the list you had before, to what you think is good now. I don't think I broke anything there. Have you any other examples?Rich Farmbrough 11:39 11 March 2006 (UTC).
I'm not sure I'm seeing your point about not breaking anything. The edit your bot made ordered the categories: year of birth, team he played for, living people, team he played for. Before Smackbot it was ordered: team he played for, team he played for, year of birth, living people. After I editted after Smackbot it was ordered: year of birth, living people, team he played for, team he played for. My preference is that the teams he played for be grouped together, and that birth year/death year/living people be grouped, and other logical groupings of that nature. The article conformed to this preference before SmackBot, and after I editted after SmackBot, but not after SmackBot's edit.
For other examples of where I think categories should be grouped logically and not alphabetically, check out pretty much any person in Category:Canadian Football League players (or subcats), or Category:National Football League players (or subcats). For one specific example, look at Doug Flutie. With the number of categories on that page I think that grouping categories logically is even more important, otherwise it just becomes a random looking list.
I don't think that sports people are the only examples, but its the only one that comes to mind right now. For example, any person should have birth year/death year/living people grouped together for easy maintenance. Qutezuce 20:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Doug has this list

[[Category:1962 births|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:Roman Catholics|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:American football quarterbacks|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:Arab Americans|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:Boston College Eagles football players|Flute, Doug]] [[Category:British Columbia Lions players|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:Buffalo Bills players|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:Calgary Stampeders players|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:Chicago Bears players|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:Heisman Trophy winners|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:Living people|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:New England Patriots players|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:People from Maryland|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:People from Massachusetts|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:San Diego Chargers players|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:Toronto Argonauts players|Flutie, Doug]] [[Category:United States Football League players|Flutie, Doug]]

Apart from Roman Catholic it's alpha order. Rich Farmbrough 13:45 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Image Tagging Image:Exempt.gif[edit]

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Exempt.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 21:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've today replaced that with (self-made) File:Exempt.png. So I've deleted the gif. Rich Farmbrough 22:03 11 March 2006 (UTC).


I too have had a stub template moved in an article I've been watching. Although the stub template generates a category (as do many other templates), it is not a category itself. It generates text and the editor will have placed it where he/she thinks best. Wrt sorting categories - please please stop this madness. Where is your authority that you can whizz through Wikipedia imposing your view of "tidy" on everyone else? If you can point to some where that there was a large consensus that it was a "good thing" to have sorted categories and that it was "essential" that all articles be brought into line, then I'll accept it.

In a number of complaints above you blame your tools. I'm sorry but you are responsible for your edits. If you can't control your tools and can't be bothered to check their effect with Show Changes then please find something more productive to do instead. Colin°Talk 21:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

St Louis rename[edit]

Have you had a chance to get the St Louis redirects, I have a flagged bot sitting idle which can take care of those tonight, looking at your contribs it hasn't been done. I'll have my bot start away on them as I really need something to do :) -- Tawker 06:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the sub-categories still need doing, (Category:Saint Louis University shouldn't change.) Rich Farmbrough 07:29 12 March 2006 (UTC).

J. R. R. Tolkien[edit]

Hi! My name is Mike, and I wanted to let you know that this article is up for Featured Article Status! It is SOOO CLOSE! And as someone who has worked on this article a lot in the past (having checked the history) I thought you could help me fix the inline citations. As I have none of the books in question, I am out of luck, but thought real enthusiasts might be able to help. So, please help, or get those who you know can to help make Tolkien a featured article! Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 18:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Arizona birds[edit]

I'm wondering if you botted this one. I don't quite see the point in wikifying the dates of first sightings of birds in a state, it seems extraneous and/or unuseful to do this. Birthdates and historical events make sense, but I'm not sure why the last edit was even made.  :/ -- Miwa 13:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with useful links. Just click on the "my preferences" link, or check out m:Help:Preferences under Date format. Gene Nygaard 17:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Gene has kindly replied for me. Rich Farmbrough 18:39 13 March 2006 (UTC).

Spellsinger reverts[edit]

Rich, your bot added a link to The Weavers in the article that I've written. I've removed the link as the Weavers in Spellsinger are a group of sentient spiders, the one you linked to are a folk group. Hope you don't mind me sorting that out. Douglasnicol 18:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not me but you! No problem. P.S. Generally add new sections to the bottom of talk pages. Rich Farmbrough 13:44 13 March 2006 (UTC).
Ah, my mistake, sorry about that. Douglasnicol 17:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing caps in section headers[edit]

Thanks for removing the caps from the section headers in epilepsy.

However, I noticed that you also removed caps from the text of an entire subsection, the one called 'Normal provocants'. (Check the article history.) I can't imagine that you did this on purpose. I wonder if you didn't use an automated method to do this; if so, perhaps you might be able to figure out where it went wrong.

Cheers, -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the note. I can fix this problem with my editing aid, so it's really useful that you've told me. Rich Farmbrough 19:28 12 March 2006 (UTC).
I am glad to have been helpful. I often wish that I had the ability to code up such useful aids. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki:Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Thanks for your welcome over on the memorial wiki! I just found it myself recently. Doc 14:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikified Dates[edit]

Please undo the "wikified" dates you made in the date articles. You have created circular references. That is, you've got date articles pointing back at themselves. Rklawton 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. You are perfectly correct that these are circular references, which are by and large a Bad Thing. However the badness has been ameliorated by the Wikimedia software (since about V1.3 or 1.4 I think) which displays them as bold instead of as links. Since the frist occurance should be bold anyway, this is ok. On the other hand, it also allows date prefernces to work. For a fuller discussion see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Linking_dates_in_lead_paragraphs. Best regards, Rich Farmbrough 23:11 14 March 2006 (UTC).
That's good to know about circular references. I suppose the extra CPU cycles aren't all that significant. However, we now have bolded dates in places where they weren't bolded before (other than as the first word in the article). I'm rather hoping you will avoid this problem with the remaining date articles and review the date articles you've already edited for errors. On a separate note, I'd recommend against running BOTs against date articles anyway. Date articles have a high vandalism rate, and BOTS run the risk of masking such edits. Rklawton 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Coolio. I'll be able to review date articles on Monday, but with 366 articles to plow through, the fewer edits, the better. Rklawton 00:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

election table[edit]

All latest election results on a national level around the world are now in a template. This was a project for a couple of months and nobody really argued against it. The big advantage is that results can be used in more entries, and that the results are not diferent throughout Wikipedia. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 18:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1969 Coal Mine Safety and Health Act[edit]

Rich, I'm about to write an entry for the 1977 act. Is the title for this one correct, or should it be somehow otherwise named? I want to make the two consistent. Also, this article was started without a reference by by Alex Horovitz, who despite his bio note saying he contributes regularly to media plagarized it from the external source I've added as the reference in his original version,[28]. (The reference by the blocked sockpuppet was actually to the 1077 act.) You might want to take a peek and if you concur, let him know whatever wiki rule applies to this situation.--Beth Wellington 05:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

After looking at the indexing in the category for U.S. laws, I decided to use neither the year, which indexes everything from the twentieth century uner "1" nor the word "federal", which would index all federal laws under "f."

I think that Alex's original 1969 article was a copyright violation. Hopefully I've changed it enough that it is no longer the case. Should an administrator, if he or she agrees with my assessment on the original article point that out to him? It doesn't need to be listed now, as there is a reference and I've paraphrased.--Beth Wellington 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Been off-line and am leaving to drive tomorrow to Ohio to give a poetry reading, so didn't reply before now. I guess it's not a copyright violation, but it still seems right to give credit where credit is due. Love the word "crosspatch!" Superpowers? H-m-m-m. The ability to leap tall piles of data in a single bound. It's a bird. It's a plane. It's Wikiman! Seriously, i appreciate all your efforts. Your humble scribe, --Beth Wellington 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New regex[edit]

I have been testing a new regex in a file called 'datestest.js' (see my monobook). It has dramatically reduced two entire classes of false positives: ISO dates and dates that have the year at the left. It does have some 'misses' and some of these can be cured by running it twice (i.e. clicking on that 'datestest' tab a second or third time). Please let me know what you think. bobblewik 18:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Enlighten me[edit]

What benefit do the (hundreds of) apparent self-linking edits achieve (see e.g. [29]). Is it some date preferences issue you are sorting? Pcb21 Pete 23:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most of them are already self-linked, I only had to do 62 days in the from 1st of July to the 31st of December, about a third of the total. It doesn't present any problems, because the software knows it is a a self link (just as it does with our sigs on our talk pages) an bolds it instead of creating a circular link. Rich Farmbrough 23:55 16 March 2006 (UTC).
Yes I agree it seems to be problem-free. I guess I just didn't get the point of the change - The ''' syntax just highlights in bold and the [[ ]] syntax does the same thing, after making the software figure out it is a self-link.. Maybe it is just making things standardized across all date pages? Pcb21 Pete 00:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
That plus if you had a page like "December 25 is the day after December 24" for some people it would look fine, for others it would look like "December 25 is the day after 24 December". Rich Farmbrough 00:04 17 March 2006 (UTC).

Minor SmackBot edit summary typo[edit]

Just a typo of general [30]. Just thought you'd like to know.--Drat (Talk) 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Rich Farmbrough 01:24 17 March 2006 (UTC).

Underscores in wikilinks[edit]

Your Smackbot just screwed up a bunch of links in Top Gear. While it's good to remove underscores from wikilinks, don't do it in the anchor part i.e after the hash (#). The anchors are given specific names, which includes the underscore. All of those links to sections now simply go to the top of the article. Fix it. Imroy 19:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, no it didn't. The link anchor was wrong - to Emmy Award#The International Emmys instead of Emmy Award#International Emmys. The link to the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution#Evolution VIII was fine. Rich Farmbrough 20:43 17 March 2006 (UTC).

Wikitext readability[edit]

Hi. Thanks for cleaning up headings with smackbot. I noticed the bot eliminates spaces in all of a page's headings. I've always been adding those spaces, because it makes the heading text much more easily readable in the edit field if it doesn't run into the equals signs. Michael Z. 2006-03-05 17:18 Z


==External links==

== External links ==

Thank you for your cleanup edit on Austintown, Ohio.[31] I would ask, however, that you not remove spaces from the headings (as you did for "External links" but for no other heading), for the very reason cited above: it improves readability for editors without changing the displayed text. Far too many Wikipedia editors squeeze edited text so much down to the essentials, the result looks like it was meant for a 16KB TRS-80 computer. (Take a look at most of the TV-show articles' "Trivia" sections sometime — they're as bad as obfuscated C programs.) Because Wikipedia is not paper, we have the luxury to use spaces and blank lines judiciously to make it easier for editors to quickly scan articles for material they wish to edit. This is defeated when every optional space is squeezed out of the text. I would appreciate your assistance in not adding to this problem. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
And now I see that your bot also removed a bunch of blank lines around headings for Herndon, Virginia.[32] I truly fear for the ease of editing of Wikipedia if you are making so many mass edits that you've managed to hit two random cities that I happened to be watching within 2 hours of each other. Please stop this counterproductive, pointless byte saving! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Smackbot escaping apostrophies[edit]

In this edit Smackbot inadvertently escaped the apostrophies in the title "Appearances in Playboy special editions". I've reverted this one, but I guess it's likely the same snafu has occurred elsewhere. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, it's only in some of the playmates articles. I promised to fix this, and am now doing so. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough 00:09 19 March 2006 (UTC).
All fixed. Rich Farmbrough 11:17 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Errors in SmackBot[edit]


I have just reverted a couple of SmackBot edits (Irvine, California and Cerritos, California), as I believe the Bot is wrong. When writing as of (insert year here) the population of (insert city here) .... the rest of the sentence should be in present tense, and not past tense. --Asbl 16:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know your view. Rich Farmbrough 23:20 18 March 2006 (UTC).
I think you are right if the text is being written at the time spoken of, "as of today we are getting lots of talk messages", but notif it is being written later "as of 12 BC there are no computers" is wrong whereas "as of 12 BC there were no computers" is right. What do you think? Rich Farmbrough 23:32 18 March 2006 (UTC).

Yes, I guess its a function of content, so it's probably best to not create a bot for this application. --Asbl 00:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


It's also made a mistake in capitalization: in this diff, the first "as" should have stayed lowercase. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 17:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I will have to scan through and fix these. Rich Farmbrough 23:20 18 March 2006 (UTC).

Caps and a blank line[edit]

SmackBot has made the same capitalization error in an edit to Centreville, Virginia,[33] as well as again removing blank lines that serve a purpose, this time between article content and categories, which are supposed to have separation to make the categories more visible. Please stop SmackBot immediately until you have reviewed Wikipedia style guidelines and have addressed the many problems that are being posted on this page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, capital fixed I will search out and fix any others, however there is still, and always has been, a blank line before the categories. Rich Farmbrough 23:20 18 March 2006 (UTC).
My apologies about the blank line. The diff shows a blank line being removed between the Geolinks template and the category, but after your statement, I confirmed that the resultant page does indeed still have a blank line. I guess it's a diff oddity. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, if I had more energy I'd file a bug. Rich Farmbrough 11:50 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Smackbot grammar changes[edit]

I really don't think it's useful to change all Census 2000 data from present tense to past tense. Ideally we want to print current statistics. The Census 2000 statistics are the most current ones we have, so we use those. Putting it all in the past tense makes it sound like the cities don't exist anymore (or that their statistics are now significantly different, which is usually not the case). This might make sense for New Orleans, but not for other cities. Plus, we'll have to change them all back to present tense when the new Census is published. Instead, let's just leave them all present tense and use whatever are the most current statistics available.

Also, I object to Smackbot making two different types of edits at the same time. This makes it very tedious to revert just one of the changes (either tense or unicoding) should either one need to be reverted. Bots should only perform one type of edit at a time (at least in my opinion). For example, I love the unicode changes you are making, but hate the tense changes. Unfortunately there is no easy way I can keep one but not the other.Kaldari 05:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot edit summary[edit]

Would it be possible to change the bot edit summary so that it is clearer that is is not primarily relinking nazi links? I come across it at different places, and it just looks so wierd to find it at places where there is no link at all..... KimvdLinde 17:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I missed your comment on my talk page earlier. The correction of the links to Nazism is complete, but I would still be interested to know where you saw the edit summary, that idn't have a Nazi/Nazism link. Thanks Rich Farmbrough 11:32 27 March 2006 (UTC).

Smackbot: arrangement of interwikis[edit]

Hi Rich - your bot's rearrangement of the interwikis at Christmas tree is wrong in putting them in alphabetical order of the two-letter codes; they should be in alphabetical order of the language itself, which isn't always the same. Some important ones to watch for:

  • es: (Español) comes before eo: (Esperanto)
  • he: (Ivrit) comes after it: (Italian)
  • ja: (Nihongo) comes after nl: (Nederlands)
  • fi: (Suomi) comes just before sv: (Sverige)

Note that this is not a complete list of all the ones that need care in positioning! - thanks, MPF 18:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


See the bots talk page, during that last squidward attack the diffs comming from the IRC feed were screwed up and it caused some problems with Tawkerbot2, sorry about that, by the time I noticed it (within a few seconds) there wasn't much I could do due to the massive squidward attack. -- Tawker 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sortkey problems[edit]

In this edit you removed the space before the "Scenic" sortkey. This moved the article from the beginning of the category to after all the routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot not reviewing edits[edit]

Not reviewing every edit as required by AWB. Blindly piped UK and US in the List of all two-letter combinations.

--William Allen Simpson 13:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Now configured to avoid that page. Rich Farmbrough 17:01 23 March 2006 (UTC).

Smackbot edit to delink month[edit]

I reverted this edit because it was incorrect. You may want to double check your bot. —Mike 03:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Now avoiding that kind of table. Rich Farmbrough 15:48 23 March 2006 (UTC).

Smackbot request[edit]

Hi, Rich. Could you, please, exclude the "xxxx in Fooian television" series (such as 1930 in television) from the Smackbot's delink list? These series is one of the few places where linking months makes sense (due to the way tables are laid out). I reverted the changes made so far. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Consider it done. Any other requests, or if this crops up again, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 13:50 23 March 2006 (UTC).

Delinking months and days of week[edit]

I really appreciate your bot delinking months and days of the week from articles. I was wondering if it could also delink isolated years? For instance, the phrase "In June of 2001" is changed to "In June of 2001", but the MoS also recommends that isolated years not be linked, just like isolated months. I've manually removed the links from isolated dates in lots of articles (e.g.), but it's tiring to do manually. What do you think? Is this something you'd be willing to do? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, count me in that coterie. I think a lot of the opposition is just against Bobblewik himself, and the perception that he's rude and negligent. (I haven't found this to be true, but some people seem to be of that opinion.) Anyway, it might be different if someone else, with a good reputation, were to try. If there's anything I can do toward this, let me know. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Smackbot, I'm not sure if this is an improvement[edit]

Hi Rich, It's good to see the changes being made to the Vermont town pages with SmackBot. However, I feel that it's making some changes that are sort of hard to read in English and I'd like your opinion. The recent changes to the Groton, Vermont page changed this sentence "The per capita income for the town was $14,659. 10.5% of the population and 6.8% of families were below the poverty line. 11.9% of those under the age of 18 and 9.1% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line." to this "The per capita income for the town was $14,659. Below the poverty line were 10.5% of people, 6.8% of families, 11.9% of those under 18 and 9.1% of those over 64."

The sentence that starts "Below the poverty line..." seems wonky. I realize this is trying to keep sentences from starting with numbers, but it seems like the old sentences were a little clearer, even if they had this grammatical undesireability, and I'd lean towards keeping it the old way or finding another solution. I don't feel super-strongly about this, but I wanted to know what you thought? Jessamyn (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not altogether happy with it as it stands. Can you make a better suggestion? Rich Farmbrough 17:38 23 March 2006 (UTC).
I'm still having a hard time thinking of a way to do it without starting the sentence with a number. Possibly something slightly more non-traditional but a little easier to follow. "The town has 10.5% of its population living below the poverty line, which includes 6.8% of its families, 11.9% of its people under 19 and 9.1% of its people over 64." The "its" could maybe be dropped. An improvement? I'd prefer to err on the side of starting a sentence with a number, but that's just my personal preference. Jessamyn (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I liked your version, however there' a technical difficulty inserting the word "town" (city, gore, CDP etc.), also "including" isn't quite right fo families. "There are 6.8% of families living below the poverty line and 10.5% of the population, including 11.9% of those under 19 and 9.1% of over 64s." Regards, Rich Farmbrough 13:08 24 March 2006 (UTC).
I think your latest suggestion is better than either how it looks now, or what SmackBot's original changes were "There are 6.8% of families living below the poverty line and 10.5% of the population, including 11.9% of those under 19 and 9.1% of over 64." certainly not perfect, but a big improvement. Jessamyn (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go with that for now, but running slowly to allow other people a chance to chip in with improvements. Rich Farmbrough 13:23 24 March 2006 (UTC).

Smackbot suggestion[edit]

There was some text on a page that looked like "June 15", which smackbot changed to "June 15". But obviously this should be changed to "June 15". If there's an easy way to recognize such constructs, fixing them would be helpful. — jdorje (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right that this would be desirable, and I do a lot of date linking, but because of the current disagreements around the whole date delinking/linking scenario I am being rather circumspect with what I do with SmackBot. In theory, the example you quoted 15 refers to the year AD 15, so even on a technical level there are problems. However there are a number of poeple working on imporving the date links, and there is a request with the developers for a better system of implementing date preferences, so all is not lost. Rich Farmbrough 00:35 26 March 2006 (UTC).

Smackbot and Chemistry[edit]

Minor problem of Smackbot's, it will fix links formatted like ''I love [[encyclopedia]]s'' to ''I love [[encyclopedias]]'', but sometimes that's not the right behavior, see line 350 of this diff. Here it fixed [[Sulfur|S]]H to [[Sulfur|SH]], but the H is not supposed to be part of the underlining. (I instead piped it to thiol, which is better anyway.) Perhaps if you instructed it to not make this change when the display text is in all capital letters or otherwise oddly formatted? If there's no obvious way to tweak the program I wouldn't worry about it, it's not likely to come up very often, but I thought you should be warned. Thanks, -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I'm not sure how to do this but I'll think about it. Rich Farmbrough 23:36 24 March 2006 (UTC).
OK I've made a change, it its a little complicated by the fact that AWB does some of these off it's own bat, and some are done through regular expressions I specify. I'll just give it a test. Rich Farmbrough 23:42 24 March 2006 (UTC).
Your initial reply was fast, but the fact that you've already thought out a possible fix is mind-boggling! wow! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It seems to work, it should now be very limited in taking capitals into the [][]. Any other issues, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 23:47 24 March 2006 (UTC).
Thanks, nice to be appreciated! R.

Capitalizing the first letter of all chemical names is incorrect[edit]

Smackbot went through the Synthesis and Production section of the article entitled Ammonia. It simplified most of the piped links to various chemicals, with which I have no quarrel at all. But at the same time it also capitalized the first letter of all the chemical names it encountered, which is incorrect usage unless the chemical name starts a sentence. Is there any way to make it recognize the difference between chemical names starting a sentence and chemical names which do not start sentences? (I have just finished changing those capitals back to lower case.

If there is some Wiki style guide that says the first letter of all chemical names should always be capitalized, then that guide is incorrect and something should be done to revise it. - mbeychok 00:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I think this was just plain wrong. Let me see if I can fix it. Rich Farmbrough 00:29 25 March 2006 (UTC).
OK should be fixed now. Please let me know if you see any more issues like this. Rich Farmbrough 00:47 25 March 2006 (UTC).
Rich, thanks. - mbeychok 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Date Articles[edit]

Smackbot is removing the self-referencing date link from date articles. The date link is important because it allows the reader to see dates formatted according to their preference. As such, it's an exception to the self-referencing rule. Besides, with the new software, a self-referencing link is bolded but doesn't appear as a link, so it's no big deal anymore. If possible please roll back your edits to date articles, change the programming a bit, and try again. If not, it's going to take a lot of work to go back and update all those articles by hand. Thanks. Rklawton 02:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC) (see our conversation above [34]).

I have a solution, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. Regards. Rich Farmbrough 03:07 25 March 2006 (UTC).
  • OK implemented for April, it's not the most elegant solution, but I think it's unlikely to be changed by users or bots. (Incidentally there are a lot of people using AWB, and I have seen at least Bluebot delinking them as well.) If you have no great objection I'll do the rest of the year. Rich Farmbrough 11:33 25 March 2006 (UTC).

Bot changes to U.S. cities[edit]

Please be careful regarding your new bot changes to U.S. cities. Many of the changes are ungrammatical, with bad punctuation (example: the use of the comma for the last clause in the first paragraph of each article). You're changing article after article in this way, with these consistent errors. Badagnani 05:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. I assume you mean the last comma in "Snooland is a town in Polk County, West Virginia, U.S., at the 2000 census the population was 33." I would see that as a parenthetical comma: what would be the correct way to punctuate it? What other grammatical errors am I making? Regards, Rich Farmbrough 11:12 25 March 2006 (UTC).
P.S. I've fixed the missing "and". Rich Farmbrough 13:10 25 March 2006 (UTC).

Smackbot block[edit]

Hi Rich, I've blocked Smackbot for three hours because it was delinking years and months. I have no problem with this myself, but it's a bit of a hot issue at the moment, and both sides have agreed not to make any more changes for a day or so until it's discussed more thoroughly. See here for the latest discussion if you want to leave a comment. Sorry for interfering. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Rich, now that I check the edits more carefully, it seems only to be delinking days and months, which so far as I know, no one objects to, so I'm going to unblock it. My apologies. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Rich Farmbrough 11:28 25 March 2006 (UTC).

SmackBot's speed[edit]

I've got no particular objection to the formatting edits SmackBot is making, but I'm getting pretty frustrated with getting up every day to find half my watchlist full of masses of SmackBot edits. Would it be possible to slow things down a bit so it doesn't have that effect? Ambi 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I will slow it down for the time being - but you must have a huge watchlist, I have over 1000 and only three SB edits on it. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 11:24 25 March 2006 (UTC).
I've only got a thousand, so it's quite possible it's just been running through those topics. Odd. Thanks, anyway. :) Ambi 11:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to vote for this bug. Rich Farmbrough 21:18 25 March 2006 (UTC).


I just thunk of something really cool, and I thought you might know if it has been discussed yet. How about an automatic "converter" for measurements so that all measures appear in the user's preferred format? Currency converters would also be interesting, too, though we might limit them to Pounds, Dollars, Yen, and Euros. The currency converter should be able to show the contemporary amount or today's equivalent (user's preference). Rklawton 20:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Here and here. Rich Farmbrough 20:50 25 March 2006 (UTC).


First of all, isn't it about time to archive this page? It's upwards of 145kb. Next, I have a question about your bot, SmackBot. What settings was it using when the bot made this edit? You can check out Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Quick Q for the context of my question. Thanks! --M@thwiz2020 23:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

These 367 pages should have self links, at least on the first occurence it supports date preferences. Therefore I always (try to) do these pages with manual intervention, or General changes turned off. I've been through the year twice checking and fixing manually, once last Sept, and once in the last few days, so I don't want to undo all that work! Rich Farmbrough 23:10 20 March 2006 (UTC).
PS you're right about the archiveing!
That's funny - while the AWB was still relatively young (about the end of last December), I went though the list of all the date articles and just did general fixes. But why 367 and not 366 (365 days plus leap day = 366)? As for the manual self-linker, you can write a simple regex to do this for you. Do a find-and-replace with regex turned on for:
Find: \|}(\r\n)*(''')?(\[\[)?(''')?(%%title%%)(''')?(\]\])?(''')?
Replace: |}\r\n[[%%title%%]]
This should (hopefully) make your task easier. I've already tested it and it works well, but only if the title of the article comes after the template close (for example, September 21). The regex allows for blank lines between the two, but no other text. I did this to avoid false positives, i.e., I don't want it to self-link all instances of the title on the page. If you have any problems with the regex, feel free to drop by! --M@thwiz2020 00:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that you have a new regex. [35] The ironic thing is that, according to your comments, you want to prevent robots from delinking the date, yet you're using a robot to leave the comments! --M@thwiz2020 23:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


You're making piped links look bad. For example, this bot changed Mac OS 9.2.2 to Mac OS 9.2.2 —This unsigned comment was added by Angelic Wraith (talkcontribs) .

Thanks, fixed. You say "for example", are there others you want to tell me about? Rich Farmbrough 23:53 25 March 2006 (UTC).

No >_> I'm not telling you :)

Uhh.. well they were on the Apple Macintosh page. I just meant it was doing that sort of thing. I reverted it so I don't see that it really matters. ^_- Dan 03:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


See: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#SmackBot_and_AWB_operated_by_Rich_Farmbrough --Francis Schonken 10:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sep11 Adminship[edit]

Congratulations! You're now and admin at the 11 September Wiki. Have fun! :) Jamesday 22:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember that you can always take a break from edit wars or other strife. This place is supposed to be fun. :) Jamesday 22:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Yea, apparently there were some major major problems with Wikipedia, it appears to be fixed now, sorry about that -- Tawker 23:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

html commentary tags[edit]

See for instance template talk:footnotestext, comment by Omegatron [36] --Francis Schonken 01:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Smackbot blocked[edit]

I have blocked SmackBot for three hours per a complaint on WP:AN/I and a few recent edits I saw delinking dates that should have just been reformatted and formatting trailing s's in piped links contrary to the Manual of Style. I don't know if these concerns have been raised before. If you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page or respond to the thread on AN/I. Hermione1980 01:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A complaint has been made here as well. I'm not concerned with years being unlinked, I do that myself, but I am concerned about what Smackbot is supposedly doing with the trailing s in links. From the descriptions of others, I am not sure exactly what changes it is supposedly making. Is it changing [[computer]]s to [[computer|computers]] or to [[computers]]? The first is against the manual of style, see here, because it makes it harder to read when editing. The second will either lead to people having to go through a redirect or it will break links that don't have a redirect for the plural form. When editing, I usually make it so that users will be sent directly to a page instead of going through a redirect. Thanks, -- Kjkolb 02:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
HI Kjolb, unfortunately I'm autoblocked at the moment so I'm answering on my talk page. The answer is neither of the above. SmackBot is (was) changing things like [[computer|comptometer]]s to [[computer|comptometers]] very much in line with MoS. Also it's not unlinking years, only months and days of the week. Rich Farmbrough 12:02 26 March 2006 (UTC).
Oh yes and things like [[computer|computers]] to [[computer]]s. Rich Farmbrough 22:23 26 March 2006 (UTC).

Unblocked. Hermione1980 23:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, that should reduce my work. It's doing the opposite of what was claimed. I could not find any examples either way, when I did a quick check of the bot's edits. Sorry about the confusion, Kjkolb 02:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot month delinking[edit]

An unfortunate side-effect of your current delinking of months meant that in a whole heap of Formula One articles, the team March Engineering, which was wrongly linked to the month as March has all become delinked. I know it shouldn't have been pointing to March but now it is difficult to find and correct those incorrect links that I've only just become aware of. Is there any way to find all of the occurences of this other than going through SmackBot's contribs? Thanks AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, how about I give you a list of articles that include "Formula One" ,"Formula 1" or Formula one" and a link to March as of earlier this month. Rich Farmbrough 11:23 26 March 2006 (UTC).
OK here it is, all 224 articles - two have special characters but I'm sure you'll know the location of the real article. Some you may wish to ignore, like "2004" Rich Farmbrough 12:55 26 March 2006 (UTC).
Thanks! AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 08:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Smackbot and US Articles[edit]

G'day, It has been pointed out to me that Smackbot is trawling through the US Census articles and fixing layout. Would it be possible to have Smackbot add USA after each location so that it reads, "Horseshoe Falls, New York, USA." Most of the census articles fail to state that the location is in the US. As it is wiki style to actually indicate what country a place is located, this would be a wonderful task for Smackbot.

What do you think?

With best wishes,

Henry Maustrauser 09:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea, but may not be trivial, I'm looking to make another run through improving various solecisms. The MoS abbreviation is U.S. rather than USA though. Rich Farmbrough 10:00 16 March 2006 (UTC).
Thanks very much. Will you let me know if it can be done (or if you have the time to do it) and that way I can stop adding them manually. It gets a little tiresome! Thank you, Henry Maustrauser 11:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Some are already happening! Also quite a lot have been done manually by various individuals. My current run will take about another 2 days, then I will re-build the replacement strings to take care of some of the 00.00 % and the redundant word "total" in "has a total population", together with the U.S. part. Anything else you spot about the census articles, please let me know. Rich Farmbrough 11:16 16 March 2006 (UTC).
You are wonderful! Thank you very much. I'll go off and edit something more edifying now. Cheers, Henry Maustrauser 11:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi—A bunch of your (SmackBot) Census revisions showed up on my watchlist, and since it became apparent to me that it was actually possible to do census data mass revisions (before it seemed to be like it'd be impossible, especially with over 600+ NJ municipality/CDP/area articles alone)... I wanted to comment that, currently, many articles' Census data sections begin at least one (if not more) sentence with numbers/percentages. This is bad English grammar—numbers beginning sentences should either be written as words (which obviously is not the solution to this, since the numbers aren't like "twenty-eight" or "seven"), or the sentence should be recast to start with something other than the number. Obviously this isn't your fault, but if it's something you could somehow correct while you're making these other corrections, it would be good. (Btw, I have never looked this up in the manual of style, but it's in many style/grammar manuals) Thanks. //MrD9 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have some thinks about this. Rich Farmbrough 08:59 17 March 2006 (UTC).

MoS... MoS... Which one? In Asutralian English, starting a sentence/paragraph with a number of percentage is OK if it makes things more readable. Starting with "Seventeen point nine percent" instead of "17.9%" seems silly. While we are at it, U.S.A. isn't used in Australia anymore, looks weird, not sure of the UK recommendation/usgae. Alex Law 16:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a debatable point, but if we can aovid it wihtout making the sentence tortuous, why not? WP has a preferred style (U.S.), which is fine by me. It may of course change in the future, but that's not a problem. Rich Farmbrough 16:26 21 March 2006 (UTC).
The issue of U.S. versus US has been debated at least half a dozen times in various locations around Wikipedia. The outcome has always been to prefer U.S. because that's the majority usage in the United States. Like American politics, American punctuation is very conservative. -- 23:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Wow, it's done so many edits it took forever for me to get back to the time on March 24 which gave me my first concern. I think it had something to do with editing everything on Wikipedia in alphabetical order without some kind of explanation as to what it was doing. Nothing against you, but I think the bot flag was set much too easily without a real explanation of what edits you were planning on making. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Of Tom Sutton and brackets[edit]

That's brilliant! Using the "nowiki" code was genius — and, yes, it's way better to have the brackets themselves not be linked. Makes them stand out properly and eases potential confusion. Kudos to you, man! Spread the word! — Tenebrae 00:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Smackbot breaking rules of grammar[edit]

Ohiopyle is a borough located in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, U.S., at the 2000 census the population was 77.

Tell me what's wrong with this sentence. Kaldari 02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

PLease tell me. Someone claimed that the last comma is wrong, but didn't reply to tell me in what way. If I know what is wrong I can easily fix it. BY the way, I did write a reply to your previous message, but must have lost it, sorry about that. Rich Farmbrough 02:23 28 March 2006 (UTC).
If you honestly need me to spell it out: In English, sentences are separated by periods, not commas. Also, I don't think the preposition "at" makes much sense in this context. What's wrong with "As of the 2000 census, blah had a population of 77"? That is a clear and concise sentence. I don't see any need to change it. Kaldari 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean about the prepositon "in" would probably have been better. I'll leave the two sentence struture alone, although I think it's a bit verbose. Rich Farmbrough 02:36 28 March 2006 (UTC).
Will you be cleaning up the comma error? Kaldari 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Rich Farmbrough 09:40 28 March 2006 (UTC).
Just a quick summary of what my previous reply would have said
Yes - we want up to date info and when we get the 2010 census data no doubt Rambot will import it. However it still does not seem right to talk in the present tense about something that is six years old. The population of the US has grown by about 10 million in this period, and Las Vegas by about 41%. Some of the really small places could have seen even more massive percentage changes.
On your second point, I agree with you in principle, however users do not like to see lots of small edits, becasue it "pollutes their watchlists". Perhpas this is something to discuss at talk-bots.
Well, I'm going to tear myself away from WP for a while and get a little real life. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 15:16 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Don't need expand if already labelled a stub.[edit]

Please read talk pages before removing expand tags. For example, on Annual report[37] I added the expand tag because I'd like that page expanded to include "Semi-annual report" and "Quarterly report". Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've put the tag on the talk page. Rich Farmbrough 21:49 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Re: RegEx[edit]

Line 480 of parsers.cs (in the code) contains a function linksimplifier with comments "changes Dog to Dog and Dogs to Dogs". WP:AWB also lists under "general fixes" (in the manual towards the bottom) that it:

  • Simplifies links like Dog to Dog.
  • Simplifies links like Dogs to Dogs.

I looked at, while it simplifies Dogs to Dogs it will not simplify Changed to Changed, etc. I can't fully understand your request, but I believe that that is what you are looking for, and I can easily modify the code to allow for that. Just drop me a message to let me know. Thanks! --M@thwiz2020 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first regex, the only way to skip dates is to get into the code. As for the second, why not replace it with </nowiki>$1$3 instead of $2$3</nowiki>? --M@thwiz2020 00:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I doubt you'll get this message (since it's archived) but I'll leave it anyways. $1$3 is guaranteed to be a good link while $2$3 might not be. All in all, you need to edit the code. I'll see what I can do to modify Bluemoose's current regexs when I have time (Friday, probably). --M@thwiz2020 01:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Tennis - RM caps in section headers and/or minor fixes using[edit]

Hi, would you mind explaining me why you transformed the tennis files into something hardly readable, like in 1994_French_Open_-_Men's_Singles and so on? What was wrong with the originals? Regards, Darius Dhlomo

Sorry, a mistake. All fixed now. Let me know if you come across any others. Rich Farmbrough 18:37 11 March 2006 (UTC).
Thanks, mate!! Good work! Regards, Darius Dhlomo 18:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Smackbot on article Carl[edit]

In article Carl, Smackbot changed [[Carl (name)]] to [['''Carl''' (name)]]. Perhaps you're auto-bolding the first instance of the article name. If that's the case please avoid that change inside wikilinks. Quarl (talk) 2006-03-11 21:57Z

THanks Quarl, we thought this was fixed. I'll check for all instances where this could have happened. Rich Farmbrough 22:00 11 March 2006 (UTC).
Cheers Quarl (talk) 2006-03-11 22:30Z Quarl 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Rich,

I noticed an edit of yours [38] had the summary (Manually checked and maybye modified clean of pages listed via Wikipedia:Bad links#Encoded_characters using AWB).

Did you mean "maybe", or is it meant to be a pun? Andjam 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly it is not a clever pun... Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 01:23 1 April 2006 (UTC).


Thanks for being receptive to criticism. I hope to be able to support future bot requests for Smackbot (of limited scope) since I do believe that the non-contentious edits performed by Smackbot were helpful. Kaldari 02:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sep11 wiki[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I've read through the various proposals to delete, move, etc. the wiki somewhere other than However, I'm not sure if anyone is moving toward a decision, and don't want to put too much work into cleaning up articles if they will just end up being deleted. I know memorywiki has taken the testimonials, but don't think they have taken the sep11:Tributes_to_individuals. Many of these presumably were articles originally written on Wikipedia, but moved to sep11 wiki (per WP:BIO). If the sep11 wiki is just completely deleted without moving or archiving these articles, then I think it leaves a void. Perhaps, the bio articles about the victims could be moved back to Wikipedia (with my watchlist growing accordingly), and the tributes to memorywiki. In my opinion, each victim is as notable and worthy of an article as the 19 hijackers are (and a few of the victims do have Wikipedia articles). Or, as a very last resort, I might be willing to take the database, buy a domain, hosting for it. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've actually tried moving some of the more encyclopedic articles back into Wikipedia, but was met with harsh resistance. They were summarily deleted under the chant "Wikipedia is not a memorial". If the sept 11 wiki is ever closed (which is a big "if") I very seriously doubt the content would be deleted outright. At the worst, it will get archived into a big zip file. Kaldari 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Regex (cont'd)[edit]

See User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Talk_Archive_8#Re:_RegEx and User_talk:Mathwiz2020#RegEx

I was thinking about the regex script you wrote and, as soon as SourceForge CVS is back up and I can download the latest code, I'll work on adding your regex, plus the requested modifications, to AWB's general fixes. I just have one question. For the regex:

\[\[([^\]\|]+)\|(\1)([^\]\|\-\'\s]*)\]\] => [[$2]]$3

Why can't there be a hyphen or apostrophe after the pipe? Why not change [[Tom|Tom's]] to [[Tom]]'s and [[Tom|Tom-Jerry]] to [[Tom]]-Jerry? I understand, though, why you don't want to change [[Tom|Tom and Jerry]] to [[Tom]] and Jerry. Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Expand / stub[edit]

So many articles are marked stub that the system is a waste of time. "Expand" at least offers some hope that something will get done as it is less used. 05:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please block[edit]

Notice you're an active admin. Can oyu please block: Posted "I love the cock" in American Civil Rights. thanks. Avraham 15:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That was fast, thanks. the vandalism was actually sitting there for about 20 minutes.

Transwiki "Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture" to wikisource?[edit]

I recommended that Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture be moved to wikisource. Like you I made some good faith edits to that article without realizing that it was not a summary of the document, but a cut and paste of the original.

Since you did some work on the article I thought you might want to voice an opinion on the transwiki. Have you ever been involved in a transwiki?

Cordially, Geo Swan 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Flag size[edit]

To my knowledger the flag size has consistently been 20px. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem - this is just one of a number of IP based, unannounced, undescussed edits being done also in an inconsistant fashion. Yours was just the first "Named" user envolved. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


I don't think putting the catgories into alphabetical order instead of a sensible order is "minor", I think it is considerable damage. If you are going to do this, please disclose that you are not making "minor edits", but it would be much better to stop doing it IMO. Osomec 20:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Block of[edit]

I noticed you temporarily blocked this IP address. Since his/her block has expired he/she has started vandalising again. I have issued a warning. Perhaps we can consider a more long-term ban? TydeNet 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Smackbot de-flagged[edit]

Hi Rich, as you may have noticed SmackBot was de-flagged a few days ago (see m:Requests_for_bot_status#en:User:SmackBot and [39])

Is it OK for you to move SmackBot's listing on WP:BOTS from Wikipedia:Bots#Bots with a flag to Wikipedia:Bots#Bots running without a flag?

Also, I'd be interested to know what your intentions are re. submitting a new bot request? If the tasks are well described and non-controversial, I don't see why I wouldn't support such request! --Francis Schonken 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Further I'd like to invite you not to use any other account at bot speed, for instance your most recent edits with the Rich Farmbrough account show:
  1. 13:51, 8 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m John D. Barrow (spelling) (top)
  2. 13:51, 8 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Balata (spelling) (top)
  3. 13:51, 8 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Tokusatsu (spelling) (top)
  4. 13:51, 8 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Walther P99 (spelling) (top)
  5. 13:51, 8 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Spennymoor (spelling) (top)
Five edits in less than a minute is at bot speed; and doing spelling corrections at bot speed is in itself a bit controversial... (it was one of the given reasons - not by me - why modbot's bot approval request was denied not so long ago...).
Sorry to make a fuss again, but please, behave ;) --Francis Schonken 16:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point taken too... I was surprised and checked quick edits in my last 500 contributions, what I found:

  1. Resulting from "tabbed browsing" after merging separate Bourgeois dab issues to Bourgeois (disambiguation):
    • 10:49, 29 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Bourgeoisie (Bourgeois dab page)
    • 10:49, 29 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Louis Bourgeois (merging with "bourgeois" dab page) (top)
    • 10:49, 29 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Bourgeois (disambiguation) (expand) (top)
  2. Page moves with a page that has a non-empty talk page auto-create 4 edits in less than a minute (well, unless wikipedia is extremely slow),
    • 00:53, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala (moved Talk:Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala to Talk:The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing: per wikipedia:naming conventions (books)#Title translations) (top)
    • 00:53, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala (moved Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala to The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing: per wikipedia:naming conventions (books)#Title translations) (top)
    • 00:53, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing (moved Talk:Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala to Talk:The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing: per wikipedia:naming conventions (books)#Title translations) (top)
    • 00:53, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing (moved Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala to The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing: per wikipedia:naming conventions (books)#Title translations)
  3. Double redirect cleanup after a page move can also be somewhat speedier than than 1/30sec:
    • 01:06, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī hīsāb al-ğabr wa’l-muqābala (avoiding double redirect) (top)
    • 01:06, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Al-Gabr (avoiding double redirect) (top)
    • 01:06, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Al-Jabr (avoiding double redirect) (top)

Notwithstanding that, I'm a bit suspicious of spelling corrections at 4 per minute on completely unrelated pages... my point is that one has to read sentences/paragraphs and check other issues (e.g. whether one isn't changing a hyperlink instead of making a typo correction etc...), I give you some examples:

  • (this one was done by a non-humanly-checked bot, so I hope you don't take offense I use this example; my point is that this change was done completely in accordance with current typo lists available in Wikipedia; and that it would've taken MORE THAN 15 SECs to realise [a] that this was nonsense; and [b] that the text between ".png|" and "|thumb" should've been removed instead of improved): diff changed:
    "[...] anual opening of the Congress [...]"
    "[...], anal opening of the Congress [...]"
  • (this one is by you, you already acted on my remark regarding it, just mentioning again here in the context of 15 sec changes:) diff changed the Claude Debussy page in 5 places; it is my contention that one needs more than 3 secs per change for finding out that the 3rd of these changes was no-good (Chopin's → Chopin's)

Regards, --Francis Schonken 12:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Shock and Awe[edit]

The following posted on about 28 admin's talk pages by Larne. Rich  Farmbrough 17:19 9  April 2006 (UTC).

Hello Mr. Farmbrough, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[40] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted to change content you might have succeeded had you not attempted to rope in loads of other editors. Rich Farmbrough 12:34 9 April 2006 (UTC).
Hi Rich, I would ask as a courtesy that you remove "Larnue's" (aka Zephram's) post from this page, which is a personal attack against me from a banned troll. See (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark, Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Zephram Stark, Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Zephram_Stark) for details about his modus operandi. He creates at least several sockpuppets a week, which are usually easy to spot, and they are banned. I'm just one the editors that reverts his edits (I could care less about what is in the Shock and Awe article.) Actually, your comment explains a lot about his behavior. If he really wanted to simply change the content, he could have made some attempt to behave more like an actual new editor. But his massive personal attack against me gave him away. He isn't interested in article content, just causing trouble. That's one of the reasons he was banned in the first place. --JW1805 (Talk) 14:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi JW, I would rather keep it on my talk page, until archived, it seems a fairly crude and feeble ploy, it would rather blacken the perpetrator's name than your own. Rich Farmbrough 17:19 9 April 2006 (UTC).

Smackbot on FastCGI[edit]

Smackbot just edited the mod_{perl|php|python} links in FastCGI, changing the underscores to spaces. The links still go to the proper pages, but I'd argue that the link text is incorrect. For once the links really should have an underscore in them! What do you think? Am I being too picky? Imroy 10:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting problem. I've fixed up that page, but the general solution is harder, perhaps we need a stop list for some of these functions (still not perfect I know). Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough 11:33 14 April 2006 (UTC).

Two little problems[edit]

Leonard N. Stern[edit]

Vandalism again! Cheers, --Beth Wellington 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron Rash[edit]

Can you figure out why the "</ref>" is showing up in the reference section? I can't! I'm sure it's some small typo in my code I didn't catch, but I copied it exactly (I thought) from Alberto Rios, y no esta problemo ayi. Adios,--Beth Wellington 17:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Still having problems. Rash asked me to cite a news release instead and it's got a glitch and the library is closing.--Beth Wellington 22:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I got the template to work, but the article name, which should be in quotations is showing up in ital. Have a nice Easter or Passover or whatever, Cheers.--Beth Wellington 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actions taken[edit]

I have blocked the anon IP, and left warnings on the other users pages that have done this in the past. Your ref problem was a /ref at the end of the article. Best wishes, Rich Farmbrough 21:03 14 April 2006 (UTC).


Hi! I noticed that when Smackbot applies general fixes, it moves the stub note to the very bottom of the page (example). It was always my belief that stub messages should be following the article body, and then followed by categories and interwikis. Could you look into this, please? Not a big deal, but when I, for example, edit pages, I do not expect to see a stub message after the interwikis. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's an archived discussion here. The salient points seem to be
  • There's not a mandated place.
  • Stubs are an editor feature (and a form of sef-reference) so belong at the end after user features. Regards. Rich Farmbrough 12:38 14 April 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for pointing me out to the archived discussion; while I was sure the issue had been discussed before, I was unable to find an archived thread on my own.
One question I still have is about your second point above. Stub notices are an editor's feature, true, but to the reader the categories will always show in the very bottom of the page, no matter where in the edit screen they are located. For the reader, it really makes no difference. For the sake of editors (those, who frequent the "edit this page" tab), however, wouldn't it be more convenient to leave the stubs immediately after the main text (i.e., before cats and interwikis), especially since the location isn't mandated anyway? I realize that "stubs-to-bottom" is an AWB feature, but somehow in the archived discussion nobody mentioned the point I am trying to make. What do you think?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Stubs include a category, so they should definately come after any "real" categories. Before or after interwiki is debateable, perhaps it doesn't matter much. Rich Farmbrough 17:24 14 April 2006 (UTC).
I guess I simply do not understand the purpose. OK, suppose we put the stub notices after categories, but what's the point? It makes no difference to readers (cats will show up in the browser after stub notices anyway), and it makes no difference to most of the editors. It is a minor annoyance to editors like me, however, who are accustomed to seeing stub notices right after the main text. Now, on the other hand, if we put notices to where editors like me are accustomed to seeing them (right after text), it would have no effect whatsoever on readers (the article will look exactly the same), and those editors who did not care in the first place will continue to not care about it. Editors like me will get rid of the inconvenience. So, is it really worth to inconvenience some people just for the sake logical purity of the article's structure?
Speaking of "logical purity", I don't even see it. If the article structure is "text+stubs+cats+iw", then, if some stubs contain cats, it translates to "text+(stub+cat)+cats+iw" = "text+stub+cats+iw"—nice and logical. If we put stubs after main categories, then the final structure will look like "text+cats+(stub+cat)+iw"—category list flow is interrupted. What's the logic in that? No matter which way you put it, it does not make sense!
I am not trying to make a big deal out of it, lest you got that impression; it is admittedly a very insignificant point. It's just that I enjoy being logical as much as the next guy, and just couldn't miss a chance to debate such a woefully incongruous inconsistency. If I missed anything in my logic or if you are sick and tired of this discussion, please let me know—I have no intention of forcing you to continue discussion you do not enjoy (I'm only keeping it out of my eternal ever-burning desire to get to the bottom of things :). Best, —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look here you will see that having stub before cats gives a cat listing like this:
Categories: Northwestern Russia geography stubs | Cities and towns in Vologda Oblast.
Rich Farmbrough 21:10 14 April 2006 (UTC).
Ah, got you! Only took me what? A day?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Too hasty[edit]

You were too hasty in editing Dandelin spheres. The applet is JDandelin, not J Dandelin. Michael Hardy 23:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it not then JDandelinEn ? Rich Farmbrough 23:17 15 April 2006 (UTC).

What is says conspicuously on the page that is linked to is JDandelin. I don't know where you got "En". Michael Hardy 23:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


I just saw your bot-assisted edits on Geno Auriemma. The article defines the colloqialism "UConn," which is used correctly in many articles about the basketball team. Your change left a couple of occasions like "his arrival at University of Connecticut," which is grammatically incorrect. It should never be used as first reference, but globally replacing UConn with University of Connecticut is a mistake, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 14:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like you've got it under control. It seems to me like the basketball (and, to a lesser extent, football) articles will be the most prone to problems. Especially watch the article UConn-Tennessee rivalry.--Mike Selinker 14:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

S. P. Timoshenko[edit]


I am new to Wikipedia. So I thought I would ask a question before editing this item. Is it permissible to list books authored by Timoshenko with others? Here are three books very important for the subject Engineering Mechanics . I would like to list those books.
  1. Theory of Plates and Shells S. P. Timoshenko with S. Woinosky-Krieger, McGraw Hill, second edition, 1959
  2. Theory of Elasticity S. P. Timoshenko with J. N. Goodier, McGraw Hill, Third edition, 1970
  3. Mechanics of Materials S. P. Timoshenko with J. M. Gere, D. Van Nostrand, First edition, 1972

Subhash 19:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought Stephen Timoshenko#Publications would be a great place to list these. Rich Farmbrough 20:45 16 April 2006 (UTC).

AWB thrashing[edit]

What the heck are you doing? There's no reason to change 18th century to eighteenth century, and you didn't convert the article (a to an). Stop.

--William Allen Simpson 07:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Heck, I've found so many problems, I'm raising it at Wikipedia talk:Bots, and perhaps at the Village Pump.

--William Allen Simpson 08:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter.[edit]

Hello there. You have proposed the article CLDR (Covenant Language and Development Resources) for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How PROD works. Sandstein 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

EXIT festival[edit]

Thanks for cleaning it up a bit. Us non-native English speakers appreciate it. Have you considered visiting this year? :) Titanium 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I should be so lucky! Rich Farmbrough 23:04 18 April 2006 (UTC).

Maximilian von Spee[edit]

No references on this article at all, except one I just added. Do you know of anyone who likes do work on such? (Did write the person who started the article. Cheers,--Beth Wellington 01:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No idea, perhaps this is a challenge for User:SuggestBot's owner, User:ForteTuba? Rich Farmbrough 18:44 18 April 2006 (UTC).

Done. Thanks for the info.--Beth Wellington 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Brian Lara[edit]

You have changed the text form "passed away" to "died". Please tell me what is the difference? Is there any such need to do so. Shyam (T/C) 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Passed away" is usually a euphemism. It doesn't say what it means. It is idiomatic. It is not encyclopaedic in tone. It is verbose. (See also parrot sketch.) "Died" is accurate, clear, concise universal English. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 22:42 18 April 2006 (UTC).
Incidentally it is mentioned explicitly at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article#writing. Rich Farmbrough 23:03 18 April 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for clarification. Shyam (T/C) 03:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

&sup2; replacements[edit]

I noticed your AWT replaced this special character entity in the Cell processor page with a superscript 2 character code (Unicode I presume). What is the advantage of this? Firefox does not find the super 2 character code in mm² when searching for the ASCII string "2". Is there a page that discusses the policy behind botification from markup entities to extended charcodes? MaxEnt 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As you may know there are a number of ways of doing superscripts, particularly squares x² x² x2, x² and , that I know of. There are pros and cons for them all, but Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Character_formatting suggests using the Unicode for 1,2,3 (also there is a redirect sitting at km², for example). When you are editing a page you can select these from the box of funny characters just under the Save/Show/Show buttons. You can also cut and paste them into the Firefox search box, they will search and highlight in the same way as other characters. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 19:25 18 April 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for the link. Confusing. The sup notations render into single characters (as seen in FF "view source") but not the same way as the Unicode chars directly entered. The sup chars (1,2,3) have lower baselines and they are slightly wider too. When pasting the rendered page source into xemacs (non-Unicode build I guess), it came out like this:
x^(0) x¹ x² x³ x^(4)
x^(5) x^(6) x^(7) x^(8) x^(9)
This still doesn't explain the pref. for Unicode chars over the entity notation, which translates (for me at least) into characters from a different code block. I have a watch set here, no further need to edit my talk page. MaxEnt 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
There was discussion of this somewhere, the advantage with <sup> is that you can use the same format for any superscript. I'm not sure which are amenable to CSS, most mainstream browsers will have the ability to display them all (but complex math can get embedded into graphics, which breaks accessibility), though this may exclude things like phones and personal organisers. XEmacs has this to say "However, as of 2005, the released version depends on the unmaintained package called Mule-UCS to support Unicode, while GNU Emacs has had robust integrated Unicode support since before 2003. The development branch of XEmacs has had robust native support for external Unicode encodings since May 2002, but the internal Mule character sets are incomplete, and development seems stalled as of September 2005."
Interesting. Rich Farmbrough 21:14 18 April 2006 (UTC).
P.S. you might find this intersting, it goes into more detail than I care to. [41] Rich Farmbrough 21:14 18 April 2006 (UTC).
Yesterday I installed MediaWiki on a FC4 machine of my own for a research topic I'm pursuing, so I'm paying more attention to small details than a normal person might. I didn't know that about Xemacs, either. It worked better on the Win 2000 machine I was using at the time, and I've never bothered to switch since. I found you again checking out Wikipedia statistics pages. As a programmer I wouldn't be too keen on substituting out character entities in PHP source code for Unicode characters, but after I thought about it, it's probably more accessible for Wikipedia newbies to cut and paste character text (including char codes once regarded as non-primary) without encountering the entity syntax. At first it seemed strange that a bot/bot-assistant would target such a trivial difference, rather than say muddling up en-dashes with em-dashes, which is more significant in presentation. MaxEnt 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you have any problems with images? I have set up two WM (1.4 I think) on RH 9, and never resolved some issues with certain image handling libraries. It still works, but you can't use all the formats, or re-size. Rich Farmbrough 07:31 19 April 2006 (UTC).
I was going to get back to you the other morning that WP was down. At that point I had equations rendering, but I hadn't enabled image upload yet. Made a pass at that today. Upload successful, but the MIME types are still foobared. Also added a cool little custom search enhancement to the Firefox search bar for my local MediaWiki. Sweet. Let's continue this discussion on my talk page which is less trafficked. MaxEnt 07:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1WW Refactor[edit]

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Passed away --> died on Kali Yuga article[edit]

Hi Rich, I reverted the correction that you made to the Kali Yuga article for two reasons. One, 'passed away' is part of a direct quote in the article. The other, more important, is that 'passed away' in that passage refers to a number of years (4,994) passing away, rather than a person. There are a couple of years in my wild youth that seemingly 'died', rather than 'passed', but in this context it's probably not appropriate. Is this a bot that made the correction? Just curious. ॐ Priyanath 17:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks. No it's not, there are about 1% quotes and about 1% correct usage. This was, unusually, both and I didn't spot it, must have been tired. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough 15:57 22 April 2006 (UTC).

It's an easy mistake to make, even if you weren't tired. A few hours after I reverted it, someone else tried to change 'passed away' to 'elapsed', and then saw that it was a direct quote and reverted themselves. It is getting rather Monty Pythonish..... ॐ Priyanath 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors
Franz Hartmann
Boffin family
The Kids Will Have Their Say
Lucas prime
List of wrestlers over 300 pounds
Volsunga saga
Hypercomplex number
Mountains of Moria
Smith of Wootton Major
Lawrence Makoare
List of monuments in the United States of America
Bored of the Rings
List of time periods
New York City Fire Department
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2001
Add Sources
Dermott Brereton
Republics of the Soviet Union
Steve DeVito
Peter York
Social Liberals (Austria)
British Afro-Caribbean community
I.L. Peretz
Random variate

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 11:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: 7=7?[edit]

I fixed the bug, thanks for pointing it out. BTW, please read the notice on top of the page and "Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page" ;-) --Dijxtra 14:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Daijiro Kato - Passed Away[edit]

Rich, HRC (Honda Racing Corporation) released a statement on Kato's death. The statement says "passed away" not "died". Please stop reverting it. Here is a link to the statement on [42]. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A plea - Excessive deletion of blank lines[edit]

Hello Rich,

I'm sure you mean well by removing those blank lines between headers and text. But in fact, it makes no difference to the appearance of the article, and it also makes the articles harder to edit, by making a messy and hard-to-interpret edit screen. (Sensible people use white space on the page when writing, to help keep everything well organized.)

Might it be more useful to spend your time combating vandalism instead?

Thanks for listening. Yours sincerely, Opus33 00:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I can also think of better ways to edit articles. Since the blank lines are not displayed, and since they make life so much clearer for editors who simply edit articles "in the raw", please restrict yourself to fixing problems rather that formatting text that very few people bother to look at, but many people use. I am currently resisting the temptation to waste my own time by reverting those edits where you have removed a blank line in this manner on pages where I've contributed. Fiddle Faddle 11:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
To back this plea up, Wikipedia itself, when it creates an article on (eg) a talk page such as this one, puts a blank line beneath the heading when you create a new topic using the "+" symbol. Now, that seems to me to be conclusive evidence that the blank line is meant to be there - the system is designed to do that itself. If it's good enough for the software it's good enough for me. Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Tide Mills, East Sussex[edit]

Is this the article you refer to? Rich Farmbrough 11:41 25 April 2006 (UTC).

Hi Rich,
I'm assuming you are responding to my note on your talk page? It is one of several articles you have been using AWB on recently. And I naturally have no objection to your fixing issues with the page(s) - indeed where there is an issue, either factual or of standards then "fixed" is what should happen.
I am simply pleading for blank lines that cause no issue in the published article to be left for ease of editor navigation. I know one can edit each section, but it is often easier to edit the totality of an article. I also know that many articles are inconsistent because some editors leave a blank line between a heading and the text and others do not. And some editors are not "self consistent" either.
Especially where headings are nested, blank lines after them make an editor's life easier when editing the entire article. Hence my plea on your talk page. I was interested that another editor had commented so joined with them in my request.
Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised, because the article in question I had actually added blank lines. Where I have removed blank lines it has been pretty much all manual, so your coming across one or more of these as well as Tide Mills, East Sussex seems coincidence. Regards. Rich Farmbrough 22:18 25 April 2006 (UTC).
Following this conversation is getting really hard. I guess it would have been easier if you had made your first response here rather than responding initially on my talk page and then copying that all (well most of it) over here. The answer is that there is either a real or a perceived issue that seems not to agree with what you say clearly that you have done when editing. Since what you are saying is that you inserted blank lines (presumably for edit legibility) and did this manually, but two of us are saying that this appears not to be the case, I guess the point is probably both made and responded to and over? Fiddle Faddle 00:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Further to your response on my talk page, sure. Rich Farmbrough 11:16 26 April 2006 (UTC).

Erik Satie[edit]

Please discontinue use of AWB for disturbing edits, like you did on the Erik Satie article [43] - What was your *reason* - if any - to change subtitle levels on that page? --Francis Schonken 08:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Standard appendices are generally level 2, and in the order "See also", "References", "Bibliography" and "External links" if present. I'm not sure what you mean by "disturbing". Rich Farmbrough 00:19 25 April 2006 (UTC).
Sorry, I'm not satisfied with that answer.
Seems like you either don't know the difference between "generally" and "always", or didn't check the net effect of your change neither before nor after saving.
Further, could you give me a guideline/policy reference indicating the validity of the "rule" you come up with here?
And with "disturbing", I mean: "disturbing". Again, from the fact that you're at loss what I mean with disturbing, it's quite clear you didn't check your edit nor before nor after saving.
Please answer on my talk page, I generally don't go around checking other people's talk pages. --Francis Schonken 07:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks fo rhe info. Had no idea. Copied the usage from some other page where it was wrong. so sorry. Cheers--Beth Wellington 23:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Passed away"[edit]

Can you provide a rationale for your crusade against these two harmless words? Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 06:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Passed away" is usually a euphemism. It doesn't say what it means. It is idiomatic. It is not encyclopaedic in tone. It is verbose. (See also parrot sketch.) "Died" is accurate, clear, concise universal English. Incidentally it is mentioned explicitly at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article#writing. Rich Farmbrough 08:45 27 April 2006 (UTC).

Date proposal[edit]

Hello Rich,

I'm not sure if you're still interested in the Dates section of the Manual of Style, but I noticed you'd commented in previous discussions. I have made a proposal to completely rewrite this section, with the hope that people from both sides of the debate can agree on a text. Please do come along and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) if you're interested. I would like as many people as possible to comment, so that we can truly say we've reached a consensus.


Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Really old regex request[edit]

About a month ago, you asked me to debug this regex. Well, I've implemeneted it into Martin's formatting script! Just added it to your monobook.js and you can click the "format" tab at the top to implement your regex, along with many others. I haven't addressed the BC/BCE problem yet but I probably will in about five minutes. --M@thwiz2020 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixing that problem would require me to change the code a lot and I don't want to do that right now although I might get around to it someday. Until then, the user must just be wary for any false positives. (If you're going to be running this code with Smackbot on date articles, though, then I will fix it soon.) Feel free to test out the code on User:Mathwiz2020/sandbox! --M@thwiz2020 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Really [insert interrobang] What's the regex? And a few questions about your questions... I don't know perl, so what's tr? And what do you mean by a second row of tabs? Do you mean you want userpage, disucssion, edit... new row, format, something else, etc.? --M@thwiz2020 21:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the only way to add "two rows" of tabs would be to have just one tab that, when you hover over it, produces a column of tabs beneath it (like a pop-out menu). --M@thwiz2020 22:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What happened to him/her/it/miscellaneous pronoun for "bot"? --M@thwiz2020 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, you must have the longest monobook.js file in history! My tip: move the census functions to User:Rich Farmbrough/monobook.js/census.js and then just include that file in your monobook.js file. As for the second line, I'm working on that code. --M@thwiz2020 22:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to the second row of tabs thing, I can't seem to figure it out. However, you can always do something like User:Bluemoose/monobook.js/catkey.js, which adds a button to the edit toolbar. (The button only works for adding text, though, it can't parse it.) --M@thwiz2020 00:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, try this code:
function myFunction()
  var image = document.createElement("img");
  image.width = 23;
  image.height = 22;
  image.src = "";
  image.border = 0;
  image.alt = "Do something";
  image.title = "Do something"; = "pointer";
  image.onclick = doSomething(document.getElementById('wpTextbox1').value);
This should work. --M@thwiz2020 00:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You can also add a link to the toolbox at left using Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/addLink and parameter where = "p-tb". --M@thwiz2020 00:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


Your bot to fix caps in headings changed 'In Germany' to 'In germany'. Colonies Chris 09:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

TYVM! Rich Farmbrough 10:31 30 April 2006 (UTC).

Ordinal numbers[edit]

I just saw that on Avagadro's number you've changed “19th century” to “nineteenth century.” I haven't found anything in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) that says ordinals are discouraged. In fact, I think they're a lot clearer in most cases. Further, the style page mentioned uses ordinal dates. Am I missing something? — Vijay 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right WP:MOSNUM does use ordinals, both numeric and spelt out. Many users, myself included, prefer to spell out smaller numbers (where the definition of smaller varies), in particular I see labelling centuries as numeric as note-taking style, and not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Rich Farmbrough 22:12 1 May 2006 (UTC).
I definitely agree that smaller numbers (I usually use the <100 definition, but I'm flexible) ought to be spelled out. Although I guess I usually have only applied it to cardinal numbers. I've never heard of "note-taking style," and I would be interested in knowing if any publications do use numeral ordinals. Of course, I usually try to make the suffix superscripted in that case, but most HTML renders superscripting quite ugly. Oh well. I guess that I'll denumeralize (new word!) ordinals when and if I see them. — Vijay 23:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


I think you have found out now in the hard way that the { {okina} } template is not there for nothing. Maybe one day in future, when most Windows Explorer owners will have updated, we can do away with it. But not yet now, I am afraid. Still suggestions for improvement are welcome. --Tauʻolunga 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That was a long time ago! Rich Farmbrough 09:40 3 May 2006 (UTC).


hey this is me — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) - added to User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 9

Claudia Emerson[edit]

An anonymous poster reinserted a blog as an external source. I suspect it's the blog's owner, Mr. Purdy ( The blog has no information of value not already listed in the article as an external source. I thought we didn't use blogs as sources. I think it's just an attempt to drive traffic to his site. I wouldn't drive traffice to my blog that way. And I have the same links available. What think ye?--Beth Wellington 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Purdy is very mad. He's even started a new blog to decry the situation. Sigh.--Beth Wellington 03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with dates in a template for references. Tried several things. None worked. I'm sure it's something simple. Help, please and let me know the fix. Thanks mr. Purdy's latest accomplishment. Linking to a site that took a poem from poetry without proper attribution, rather than linking to Poetry He proudly says NPR is using his screed against Wikipedia. He also brags that the admins here removed the complaints about him--actually it was just archived. Sigh redux.--Beth Wellington 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Rich, if you look at the reference section, when I tried to wikify dates in refernces, the brackets show. Thanks--Beth Wellington08:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

'Preciate it!--Beth Wellington 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Wiki[edit]

On the main page of the 9/11 Wiki, there is a link to sep11:Wikipedia, a page only created since the main page link could not be changed without sysop privledges. Could you update the link to go to Wikipedia's Main Page (or similar) and delete sep11:Wikipedia? Also, you might want to look at the "speedy delete" page if you have time. Thanks! Timrem 02:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus for Portal:Law[edit]

Greetings, Rich. I've picked Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus for theLaw portal's next "selected case". I saw that you did some editing on it, and was wondering if you would give it a run-through to determine if anything should be changed. In particular, the case should have a citation if possible, and should note legal appeals of the conviction, if any. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi, you might watch your AWB edits a little more closely. This, for example, contains this gem:

There were 15.8% of families and 19.2% of the population living below the poverty line, including 12.5% of under eighteens and 35.7% of those over 64.

That is pretty poor English by any standards. Of course the Rambot census jargon left lots of room for improvement, but this is not. olderwiser 17:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Hi Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Mega 0, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Glen TC (Stollery) 22:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Response also posted on VandalProof disscussion pages[edit]

Give log into IE, and give it a shot, let me know the results and I will post that up on the welcome page, thanks.Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If this does not work I will need infomation on your settings for wikipedia. Let me know
Ok, this has been seen before, try this solution, if it does not work, reply on the disscussion page... ditto if it works I want to know both ways thanks. (IE Script Warning help, click hereEagle (talk) (desk) 23:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Was it the solution I gave you that worked??? If not tell me what you did.... Thanks, my job as a mod is mainly to smooth out this kind of stuff. Agian really appreciate it, you can post your response to my talk page:-).Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol... yes you absolutly NEED popups,

Add {{subst:navpop}} to your monobook, and let me know what happens or if you need help with my instructions. Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, tell me where that documentation is, and I will fix that right now:-) Tell me if you are working properly--- All features and everything... and thanks for asking for help.Eagle (talk) (desk) 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Arlington County, Virginia[edit]

Hey Rich, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated Arlington County, Virginia as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week. The article is in need of much help and with a little group effort, it could be brought to Featured Article status! I brought this to your attention as I have seen you have contributed to the article in the recent past. Please cast your vote with your signature at the US Collaboration of the Week page under Arlington County, Virginia. --Caponer 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Georgia" is at Georgia (U.S. state)[edit]

Please try to link the article rather than the dab page [44]. -- User:Docu

Strange, I was quite pleased that I was linking to the U.S. State page... Thanks for telling me. Rich Farmbrough 22:15 5 May 2006 (UTC).
Good idea BTW. I always wondered why the state wasn't linked. -- User:Docu

Around or before 07:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

test on vandal proof[edit]

Sounds good, I am having my own problems as well with vandal proof, have a look on my talk pageEagle talk 09:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Signpost updated for May 8th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 19 8 May 2006

About the Signpost

New worldwide rankings show Wikipedia strength outside US Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages
News and Notes: Milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Before 08:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed by scanning subsystem[edit]

I haven't seen it at all. Can you point out which one you were talking about. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is very strange. Have you contacted the schools ISP? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you'd commented on an anon's page, who seems to be running software to prevent the posting of expletives. Quite likey it is a school. If this becomes widespread it will take some combatting. Have you seen it elsewhere? Rich Farmbrough 16:01 8 May 2006 (UTC).

Have a butchers at this diff. I'm scanning the most recent database dump to see if there's more - just found one in Glen Matlock. Rich Farmbrough 16:08 8 May 2006 (UTC).
Same IP. Only one I could find. Rich Farmbrough 16:18 8 May 2006 (UTC).
P.S. time to archive your talk page! Rich Farmbrough 16:08 8 May 2006 (UTC).

Date delinking[edit]

I am hopeful that Ambi can be encouraged to fully accept Quadell's remedy. Please look at my talk page. Thanks. bobblewik 19:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"passed away -> died using AWB".....[edit]

You're leaving a trail of morbidly amusing edit summaries behind you: at first glance I thought you were saying that these individuals had died using AWB. Now that's dedication to Wikipedia! Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


"The Lotus Case and Laser resurfacing have been "in use" since you created them..."

Fixed. Face-smile.svg Folajimi 17:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler[edit]

In the article Death of Adolf Hitler you modified the form "When she passed away on October 31" to "Immediately before she died". This is not about Kamato Hongo or her death. Use of her persona in connection with Adolf Hitler calls for very carefull choise of words. I have restored the original form. -- Petri Krohn 03:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The original said that she was alive when she was dead. I thought that was a bad idea...Rich Farmbrough 18:13 13 May 2006 (UTC).

Date linking[edit]

Can you not delink dates such as December 2004? There has been no discussion about removing these. Rebecca 04:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Areas: mi² or square miles?[edit]

Hello. I'm not sure if I have anything to add to the argument that hasn't already been said more eloquently. My personal opinion is that there isn't anything to be gained, and much to be lost, by using abbreviations that only appear once or twice in an article. Futhermore, I know that mi is an approved abbreviation for mile in the US, but most UK readers will need it spelling out, as mi is not common here (eg it does not appear in the 2000-page Chambers Dictionary, unlike m). Essentially though, I agree with the first dozen lines of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units. Mr Stephen 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Please don't post the amount of the settlement, as it will subject you to suit personally from Mr. Merkey. Bad idea.--BradPatrick 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

DJ Pierre[edit]

Has an out-of-order category in the Cite-sources template - hence Pearle spots it. This is really symptomatic of self-ref cleanup tags which, perhaps, like stubs should not be at the top? Rich Farmbrough 13:51 11 May 2006 (UTC).

The problem was that someone inappropriately used subst: for {{unreferenced}}, which inserted a Category: link at the top of the page, where it does not belong. It is common practice for these templates to be at the top of the page, where they are most visible. I replaced the result of the subst: with the template itself. -- Beland 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed event policy for Wikicalendar[edit]

I recently posted some ideas about developing criteria for what should and should not be listed on Wikicalendar events at the Wikicalendar's talk page. Since you're actively involved in this project, I thought I'd let you know so that you can comment or add more suggestions. Thanks :). Fabricationary 23:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 15th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 20 15 May 2006

About the Signpost

Publicity surrounds Chinese site reusing Wikipedia content German chapter prevails in Tron appeal
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages News and Notes: Time 100 Gala, milestones
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Before 08:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Okay. Thanks for sorting that out! :) -- Tangotango 08:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Passed away"[edit]

Thanks for your work in ridding Wikipedia of that irritating euphemism. AnnH 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

De-linking dates[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering why your bot de-linked the year-dates on Levi Yitzhak Bender article? Especially on his birth years? Thanks, Yoninah 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, since it is notable in that he had more that one birth year Face-smile.svg, I have re-linked them. In general dates are only linked when the links are useful WP:MOSNUM (the exception being if month and day of month are included when they respond to user preferences, e.g. 3 May). Historically every date was linked, which means there are many unnecessary links (the "sea of blue"), and, more importantly, new editors are copying this style. On a tangential point, a huge battle blew up several months ago when an editor proposed using a bot to de-link dates - so let me be clear this is not a bot. I have a bot account User:SmackBot which does useful clean up tasks. Rich Farmbrough 08:04 15 May 2006 (UTC).
Where did you get the idea he has more than one birth year? I'm the only one who's worked on this article, and there's no talk page saying otherwise. These are the dates provided by my published source, Breslov Research Institute.
In future articles, are you suggesting that if I don't know the month and day as well as year of birth/death, I shouldn't link the years? Thank you, Yoninah 18:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing image name[edit]

This is just to let you know that you should NOT change image spelling to any images, even if the spelling is incorrect. ie Changing an image that has "middle earth" to its proper "Middle-earth" Wikipedia will assume that it is a diffrent image and (assuming there is no image of that name) it won't show an image at all. Although it is appropriate to correct the spelling if it is in the image's captioning (the description below it).--Ted87 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No I don't have it. Sorry. Are you a Tolkien/Middle-earth fan? If you are then you may be intrested in joining Wikiproject Middle-earth.

Amon Hen 171[edit]

Hi there. I saw your question about this on Ted's talk page. I have this issue of Amon Hen which has the article Tolkien and Beowulf by Michael Kennedy. What exactly do you want to check about it? Carcharoth 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Middle-earth spelling changes[edit]

Hi again. I also saw the little discussion about changes to the spellings of Middle-earth. I saw the edits where you did this in the Tolkien article, but then reverted yourself. Was this because the "incorrect" spellings you picked up with AWB were actually incorrect spellings in book and essay titles that should be left as they are? Looking a bit more closely, I spot a certain Tolkien and Beowulf essay there! So I think I know why you wanted Amon Hen 171! I can confirm that on both the contents page and in the title, Middle-earth is spelt with a small 'e'. So I've taken the liberty of making that correction. Carcharoth 21:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Though actually, I see that the webpage on which this article was republished has it spelt as "Middle-Earth", so please revert me if you think it should be left with an "E". Carcharoth 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
And the Legendarium one is "e" and the Myth and Modernity one is "E" - from book covers on Amazon. The New York Times article, from Google searches (as NYT requires log-in) is "E". The Michael Martinez article is "E". And rummaging around various reliable websites leads me to think that the Caedmon audio cassette is "E" with no hyphen! So the only one I am unsure about is the Kennedy article - the original publication (Amon Hen) is "e", but the online version (and more importantly the more accessible version), is "E". Incidentially, should the reference say Amon Hen, when in fact it links to an online republication of the article? Carcharoth 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

One Wonderful Day Quotes[edit]

Hi Rich. I just wanted to let you know that Dr. Craig did say "passed away" when informing Bree of Rex's death. I would know that since I have it on DVD. I changed it back to "passed away". If you have any comments, feel free to drop me a message or on the talk page. Cheater1908 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Rich Farmbrough 11:26 21 May 2006 (UTC).

Signpost updated for May 22nd.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 21 22 May 2006

About the Signpost

Project statistics updated, except for Wikipedia Deletion of metadata icons debated
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages News and Notes: Wikimedia chapters report, milestones
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

About 08:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor barnstar[edit]

This is for excellence in minor edits - well done...!

Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
For all those relentless minor edits! Keep up the good work Tyrenius 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


[45] Okay, 5 p.m. is fine. But not one minute later. :-p Femto 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to know Femto keeps an eye on the pico. Rich Farmbrough 13:34 23 May 2006 (UTC).

Changes to Hordville, Nebraska[edit]

Hi, Rich, and thanks for your improvements to Hordville, Nebraska. I have just a couple of comments that might help you if you decide to continue making similar improvements to other city articles.

First, I noticed you changed the link [[square kilometer|km²]] to [[km²]]. To avoid the redirect, perhaps this should be changed to [[square kilometre|km²]] (note the -re spelling).

I also see that you improved the following pair of sentences:

11.2% of the population and 10.9% of families were below the poverty line. 9.8% of those under the age of 18 and 0.0% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.

Your revision was as follows, which is much better:

There were 10.9% of families and 11.2% of the population living below the poverty line, including 9.8% of under eighteens and none of those over 64.

I would suggest the wording below:

About 10.9% of families and 11.2% of the population were below the poverty line, including 9.8% of those under the age of 18 and none of those 65 and older.

To me, "under eighteens" sounds very clumsy; the original "those under the age of 18" sounds much better. I think you added "there were" to the beginning of the sentence to avoid starting it with a figure, but I don't like how that sounds. I tried to come up with a better way of wording that, and the best I could come up with is to use the word "about". After all, it appears that the Census Bureau does a little fiddling to come up with those numbers. There were 48 families in Hordville as of the 2000 Census. If five families lived under the poverty line, that would be 10.4% of families; if six lived in poverty, that would be 12.5%. So the 10.9% figure must be an estimate based on some statistical analysis, in which case "about" is appropriate. The same goes for the 11.2% figure.

Let me know what you think. —Bkell (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive comments. On the first point, square kilometre was a redirect until earlier today, when I recreated it for the second time! So it's a considered decision to go for km², but admittedly a little arbitrary. On your second point, this is perhaps the most complicated part of the process, because the original wording of the poverty section was manifestly wrong, therefore a lot of manual changes occurred. I do take your point, and am not completely happy with any solution I've seen for wording this part, but I will review what I do in light of your comments. Because the changes are now fairly complex, (and I've done about 3,500 articles already) I may also finish the exercise as is, or very close, and come back with improved wording as a third pass. (The first pass was putting the census results in the past tense.) Rich Farmbrough 21:16 25 May 2006 (UTC).
P.S. I've now incorporated your suggestions for the poverty sentence. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough 11:48 26 May 2006 (UTC).

edit summary[edit]

Can you remove the extra "using AWB" from smackbots edit summary, it currently says it twice. thanks Martin 15:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. Rich Farmbrough 15:35 28 May 2006 (UTC).

Signpost updated for May 29th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 22 29 May 2006

About the Signpost

Semi-protection tweaks prompt debate over ideals Wikipedia administrator investigated after on-wiki dispute
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Before 08:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

0.00% in census data[edit]

I noticed your bot's edit to Muenster, Texas and thought I'd let you know that I rather think that the 0.00 % figures in census data for a town is necessary for major races. It 1) establishes that the race makes up less than 0.005% of the population (0.00 is not the same as zero) and 2) reaffirms for the reader that the US Census isn't lumping that race under "other races". — Laura Scudder 14:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

On your first point, I had thought of that, for towns with a population of less tan 20,000 even one person should show up as .005% rounded up to .01%. I will not substitute 0.00% for towns with a substantially greater population, (although I suspect there will be few if any). Your second point is interesting, "other races" is fairly well explained in the article Race (United States Census) which is extensively linked to from every article. Perhaps putting "other races" in quotes would emphasise the meaning. See Muenster, Texas, let me know what you think. Rich Farmbrough 15:09 29 May 2006 (UTC).
P.S. The largest town I found with a 0.00% was New Richmond, Ohio, with a pop of just over 2000. Rich Farmbrough 13:48 30 May 2006 (UTC).

Scott Shields[edit]

Why is the MyDD article at this article, which I found when I referenced Shields in an edit to the Sago Mine disaster article? Shields is now the director of internet communications for the re-election campaign (well actually he was appointed--so maybe it's an election campaign) of Senator Bob Martinez (D-NJ). I'd be glad to update the article to actually match the title, if that won't mess things up.--Beth Wellington 18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No idea, it could do with some content. Rich Farmbrough 18:53 3 June 2006 (UTC).
OK, I also left a note for the last person to edit the article. I'll see what he suggests. Cheers,--Beth Wellington 19:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeking your help with units and images[edit]

My unit formatting script: User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js sometimes changes image names. For example this edit. Do you have any suggestions as to a change that I could make to stop that? bobblewik 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have thought about this problem before, and not come up with a fix. But I now think maybe I can. I'll mull it over over night. Rich Farmbrough 22:26 4 June 2006 (UTC).
Just thought I'd let you know I have written a script to solve these replacement problems, it's under preliminary testing. Rich Farmbrough 07:23 9 June 2006 (UTC).

Signpost updated for June 5th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 23 5 June 2006

About the Signpost

New revision-hiding feature added Paper profiles Wales, slams Wikipedia business coverage
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages New external tools
News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

About 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Qohelet "The Prophet"?[edit]

Considering that Ecclesiastes belongs to the Writings, rather than to the Prophets would you mind stating your justification for adding the "The Prophet" to the title Qohelet?

I think that reading Ecclesiastes#"Qohelet" and "Ecclesiastes" would clarify the question.

--Ziusudra 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention, it should have been "The Preacher". This is an alternative name from King James Version. Reagrds, Rich Farmbrough 15:05 5 June 2006 (UTC).
That translation is already discussed in the next section in the same article, as I mentioned. No point in adding it to the first line (makes it KJV-centric). I would have let sleeping dogs lie. Cheers, Ziusudra 15:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthew links[edit]

I noticed you are using AWB to wikilink to verses in Matthew. However, most (if not all) of the verses you are linking to are simply redirects. I think the more appropriate course of action to take would be to use template:bibleverse instead. What do you think?--Andrew c 17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of Bibleverse, Bibleref, niv, wikisource, and one or two others. The slight problem is that none of these are supported on standalone copies of WP or paper copies, nor can we rely on them to always be there. I am also aware of the heateed discussions about bible verse articles. I also think a user is entitled to expect the text (a text) of a bible verse, plus some information about it if they look it up on WP. I am planning on writing a modest proposal, in the next few weeks, to try to solve some of these problems. This exercise is a warm up for that, as much as anything. Incidentally I have just read the article New Testament apocrypha, and am amazed at how much more there is to know about the early church. Rich Farmbrough 17:41 6 June 2006 (UTC).

note {{tl:Sourcetext}}

  • I am aware of Bibleverse, Bibleref, niv, wikisource, and one or two others. -- Bibleref has been deprecated. The wikisource template does not serve the same purpose as the other templates. Having multiple templates with similar function is stupid, I will admit, but seeing as how bibleref is being removed, a single, standard template is probably on the horizon.
  • The slight problem is that none of these are supported on standalone copies of WP or paper copies. Well, WP:NOT.
  • nor can we rely on them to always be there that is why we use templates. We can easily change what site the template links two, as opposed to using a direct external link.
  • This exercise is a warm up for that, as much as anything. Well then, I think you are going about this the wrong way. Make your proposal first, before making bold preemptive changes.
  • I also think a user is entitled to expect the text (a text) of a bible verse, plus some information about it if they look it up on WP. Once again, WP:NOT. We are not a primary source, or a collection of source material (that's Wikisource). We are not a bible commentary (that's wikibook). Once again, if you knew about the heated discussions about bible verse articles, then why are you circumventing the community?

In summary, I feel that if an article is already using one of the templates, and you add in links to the redirected bible verses, it gets confusing. If users are used to clicking on a link and being taken to biblegateway, then they click on your new links and get taken to the main gospel article, it can get very confusing.

This just in, I just looked at your edit history and noticed you creating over 500 blank redirect pages for the verses of Matthew. What in the world are you thinking???? --Andrew c 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


I notice you have been editing trivia to miscellania on a number of TV episode pages. Isn't it spelled miscellanea? Why do you prefer this term to trivia? If you wouldn't mind could you please post any reply on my talk page as it looks a lot less busy than yours and will be easier for me to spot. --Opark 77 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bother! You're correct, now I have to change them all. I prefer miscellanea to trivia because trivia is stuff that's not worth bothering with, and hence has no place in an encyclopedia. Rich Farmbrough 13:04 6 June 2006 (UTC).
Rich perhaps you should check out regarding the definition of trivia. Dannycarlton 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Could you take a look at Prayer. A user constantly is adding a useless external link. I've done my three reverts for the day. It also seems like he's created additional usernames to back up his statements. Thanks. -- Jeff3000 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's got the message. Rich Farmbrough 21:15 6 June 2006 (UTC).
No I'm waiting for someone to explain why in the world the link isn't allowed. Dannycarlton 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting on my RfA[edit]


Before 08:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia -> Miscellanea[edit]

I am curious as to why you are mass-changing instances of "Trivia" to "Micellanea". Is this some new guideline on Wikipedia, or is this just your own project? Just wondering so I can be "in the know". Thanks. RattleMan 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a thing I'm doing. However there have been some discssions at Wikipedia:Trivia. Rich Farmbrough 14:08 8 June 2006 (UTC).
Yes, I'd like to know as well. Everyone knows what "Trivia" means but "Miscellanea" just sounds... odd. Very odd. The word is not nearly as friendly. If this is a new Wikipedia guideline, I'd like to know how I could contribute to changing it back. Esn 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Presumably you're referring to The Kid Brother? I replied to RattleMan on his talk page. The point is that "Trivia" is information which is not really of use or interest. Ideally information that is of interest should be in the article body, information that is not should not be in the article at all. Nonetheless miscellaneous useful information may need a section of it's own - calling that section "Trivia" invites the addition of facts such as "Harold Lloyd took more cream in his coffee making this film, than in the two previous films put together." You may well find a better name than I have used, please change it and let me know. See also Wikipedia:Trivia. Rich Farmbrough 09:28 9 June 2006 (GMT).

Ehren Watada[edit]

I you haven't already weighed in, you may want to take a look at [46]. I'd be intersted in your opinion on th eproposed AfD. Cheers, Beth --Beth Wellington 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot edit to Forsyth County, North Carolina[edit]

Hey, would you mind redoing the SmackBot cleanup on Forsyth County, North Carolina? I reverted the edit because it was on top of some vandalism. Wmahan. 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough 21:30 9 June 2006 (GMT).
Thanks! Wmahan. 21:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Smackbot & External links[edit]

It'd be far more productive to remove bogus external links (per WP:EL) than switch between "External link"/External links". From the edit summary it seems like this bot is run under user supervision - so you could do it?

Getting rid of crap links has value, but stray plurals? Thanks/wangi 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the replacement is automatic. I compile a list of articles with more than one link in the external links section by analysing a databse dump, and run the search and replace on those articles. I think it looks bad to say "External link" and have several.Rich Farmbrough 08:48 10 June 2006 (GMT).

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Richard!

Thanks for the helpful info. I only just found it on th discussion page. I'll try to work with that in the future.

All the best!

--Amandajm 01:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Bible verses[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you created a number of articles like List of chapters and verses in the Book of Job that consist entirely of redlinks. Do you have a useful purpose in mind for these articles? Since these individual verse articles don't now exist for the most part, the lists aren't really doing anything now ... and even once they do exist, categories or navigation templates would work just as well, IMO. A couple of them have been brought up on AFD ... and, given time, the whole lot will probably be deleted unless there is some reason for their existence. As a reminder, if you should decide that they are no longer useful, you can tag them with {{db-author}} to request that an administrator delete them. BigDT 12:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok ... there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Job ... you may want to mention your purpose there. Userfying them is probably a very good idea, though, as it would save the headache of arguing over what to do with them in the interim. BigDT 12:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for clearing up the Smackbot question I had and for all you and the bot do. Ruhrfisch 13:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what your proposed Smackbot code is, but see:

Regards. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 12th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 24 12 June 2006

About the Signpost

From the editor: RSS returns
English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 Featured Articles Administrator desysopped after sockpuppeting incident
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Council elections in England - wikify dates[edit]

Hi Rich. Thanks for the offer to look at wikifying a large no. of dates on various pages. (Ref: User_talk:A_bit_iffy#Category:Council_elections_in_England_-_wikify_dates)

You asked me to put a list of the articles concerned here. However, as it would take me quite a while to produce such a list, and as all the articles have similar categorisation and naming, I'm wondering whether you could automate that part as well.

All the articles concerned are in subcategories of Category:Council elections in England, and all of the article names end " local elections".

Notes: It's possible some of the articles might happen not to have by-elections listed (because there haven't been any in recent history). Also, a small number of articles have had their "dd/mm/yyyy" dates wikified (usually by me).

Anyway, I hope you can help on this. If you want me to produce a list of the articles concerned, let me know. Cheers, --A bit iffy 11:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That saved days - excellent stuff, Rich! Cheers, --A bit iffy 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Some odd formats[edit]

I came across a lot of school articles with odd date formats. See Bear Creek Elementary School and its ilk. Just thought you might be interested. bobblewik 18:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to let him know. It seems quite a few of the BC school articles you're in the process of fixing were authored by one person. --Stephane Charette 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Pedro Lopez[edit]

Do you know what happened to the Pedro Lopez page? You did a lot of work on it, but it seems its been recently removed for copyvio or some such.--Cúchullain t/c 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thansk for letting me know. I hope it is now fixed. Rich Farmbrough 22:35 12 June 2006 (GMT).
It's been marked for copyvio again, but at least this time the editor explained what parts exactly are problematic.--Cúchullain t/c 17:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Looking through the history it seems the material in question was actually added by EliZZZa, who runs the site it originally came from. I doubt this new site has the copyright to it.--Cúchullain t/c 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal message from AOL user impersonating Jeff[edit]

Stop hand.svg
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 03:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
—The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
The above comment was not by me, someone is impersonating me. The IP is from the US, and I don't live in the US. -- Jeff3000 01:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

wikifying dates[edit]

Hi Rich, I noticed you had wikified dates and years on the article Stephen Harper. I believe it is policy only to wikify the first mention of a particular date or year in an article, ie only the first 1995 for instance. Thanks, Kalsermar 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a guideline to link only the first occurrence of a link, except where style dictates otherwise. However dates that include the month and day number will format differently according to user preferences, and hence should almost always be linked thus 1 May 1999 (WP:DATES) - bare months, years, days of the week, seasons or centuries should almost never be linked. Rich Farmbrough 15:43 14 June 2006 (GMT).

Establishments by year[edit]

Many thanks for sorting out all the pages using AWB (must find out more) - that's saved me hours of work. By the way, way did you let me know that there is no year zero? I'm in the know about that - has a year cat been created for year zero? Greenshed 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup groups[edit]

There is a discussion going on about it. So please don't delete it till there is either consensus or no consensus. Kingjeff 22:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you respect me and everyone else who is willing to discuss the proposed deletion? That's all I'm asking for. But please wait for consensus. Kingjeff 22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Fair enought. I had not seen it. kalaha 12:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot account[edit]

Have you ever considered getting a bot account for some of your massive automated edits?--Andrew c 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have one (see my FAQ). However every extension of purpose needs to be approved, which means for relatively small tasks (especially one offs) of only a few hundred edits it's quicker to do them manually, secondly my bot account does not have a bot-flag, because there is currently no process on en: for getting one, and thirdly any edit where there is a significant possibility of a human (or other) mistake needs to be done by an non-bot-flagged account, so that it does show up on recent changes etc., this includes manual test samples of big bot runs. Rich Farmbrough 12:17 16 June 2006 (GMT).
Well two things come to mind:
  • Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.
  • Don't do anything controversial with it.
I think the first rule needs no explanation. (Your "estcattemp with estcat" edits over the course of 2 and a half hours, totalled around 700 edits, resulting in ~4.6 edits per minute). As for the controversial edits, massively changing "Trivia -> Miscellanea", and wikilinking Matthew bible verses to redirect pages, as opposed to using one of the EL templates, or simply avoiding the redirect by wikilinking only the word Matthew and leaving the verse numbers. But you already have a FAQ section regarding your edit behavior with AWB, so I doubt I am mentioning anything new to you.--Andrew c 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

are you talking to me?[edit]

Hi, I received your message about FIFA 2006. You said:

These artices could do with a Nav-Box in my opinion. I'm to my bed, any chance you might whip one up? Rich Farmbrough 23:26 15 June 2006 (GMT).

Are you talking to me? I don't understand. --Neo-Jay 23:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Many thanks. I have added this template to the rest of the group articles.--Neo-Jay 14:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 25 19 June 2006

About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Just to let you know.. I've done the centering on the templates you mentioned. Should be good to go now. ;-) Netscott 14:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually formulating something like that as we speak. :-) Netscott 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's see how it looks:
New Template:Tnavbar-header

Netscott 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree... I'm trying to figure out how to make the default background color come through so that the template is universal. Netscott 15:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The argument is defintely a solution but I'm just not sure if adding a third criteria is warranted if there's a way to make a whatever default color come through. You idea about actually using headin= and template=, etc. might make more sense as well... please continue to edit the new template as you see fit in that regard. Netscott 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
ok, I added a bgcolor= criteria... in accord with your idea... I still think there should be a way for the table color to be "transparent" in accord with whatever color is set by a given row. Here's an example below with the bgcolor set to #BFD7FF (like the Fifa template)
Incorporation of User:Rich Farmbrough's background color idea as found on template Template:Head-cum-Tnav

Netscott 15:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you suggestion about the background color. I couldn't find a more universal solution that'd just have the formatting table be "transparent" to show a given color for a given row and work across most standard browsers. Myself and a couple of other editors had encountered this centering difficulty before and I'm not sure why it hadn't dawned on me to just make a centering header Tnavbar. After I solved the issue surrounding the Fifa templates it became perfectly logical to make one (as you came to the exact same conclusion). With the existence of the new header Tnavbar all of the previous "tough spots" that I recalled seeing previously came back to mind and I went about editing in the header... which is why it's use is already so extensive. Thanks for contacting me about the centering issue and spurring me on in that regard. Cheers! Netscott 11:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


You gave a statistic for what you call 'bare' years. I am not sure how you define that. Can you let me know where you got it from?

You gave me some pointers to statistics before and I filed them carefully but have forgotten where. I pulled up 40 'Random articles' tested them against my 'dates' tool. It wanted to edit 16 of them. That depressing 40% rate works out at 480,000 articles in Wikipedia. bobblewik 19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot approval[edit]

I have taken a break from WP:BOTS, when I "left" I thought Essjay's proposed system would be put to use and I am surprised it has not.

Perhaps the whole process should be modelled after Articles for deletion. Each bot gets a subpage (intially used for first running approval, and later for flag approval). On the subpage, discussion occurs and an approval group member "closes" the discussion with a decision (after 7 days or whatever). Two distinct sections would be set up on Bots/Requests for approvals - initial run approval and flag approval. When flag approval is granted, the bot operator lists a request at Requested bot flags (linking to the discussion etc).

Or you could just document and use the the last bit - the use of Requested bot flags. This would solve your current flag problem I think (and I don't know why it isn't being used at the moment).

I don't have the inclination to introduce this new method, but maybe you or others do.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Only the owner process is documented, not the approvals group process". Is this asking if a different system should be introduced? Or you want to remove its "arbitrary, virtually self appointed" nature (which is perhaps odd, but seems to work well)? I can't think of a safe alternative that works, and haven't seen one proposed.--Commander Keane 12:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Days of the week and months[edit]

Thanks for your comments. You are doing great work, thanks. Incidentally, one of the reasons why I mentioned User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/datebits.js is because it deals with 'month+year'. I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of that. Feel free to ignore it or use it as you think best. No response required. Regards bobblewik 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


"Vandalism" on Jane Gazzo's article[edit]

Hi Rich. has twice removed relevant material from the article on Jane Gazzo --- which I continue to put back. Any ideas what can be done ? Bests --- Bob Wikiklrsc 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rich, for your excellent suggestions and reply. Will do as you recommended. Bests Ever. --- Bob Wikiklrsc 15:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rich, the anonymous contributor User: has done it again for a third time. I have done as you suggested, left a message on the anon's discussion page User_talk:, and on Jane Gazzo's article discussion Talk:Jane_Gazzo, but I fear it will happen incessantly. Unfortunately, I have limited access to the internet in the next while, so it will be terribly difficult for me to guard against it or discuss or revert it. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rich. Thanks for your kind reply. Okay, I will follow your advice. But some administrative action might need to be taken sometime soon, as you and the community deem necessary and appropriate. Bests ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Rich. Many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rich. Hmm. Point taken. It is a fan page of Jane's and keeps track of what she is doing in the music and entertainment business, albeit esconced in Tony's blog. "Occasionally acceptable links ... fan sites" in WP:EL might qualify ? Please let me know what you recommend and I will remove the link if it is objectionable by WP guidelines. Or you can remove it yourself if you think it is in violation as I am about to lose my access for the day or next few days possibly. I mean it is a fan page, but informative as to her doings around and it is the only way we currently have to know what Jane Gazzo might be up to. The anon contributor made no such cogent explanation as you did. Many Thanks as ever for you help and kindness. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rich. Anon editor User: continues to remove it without explanation. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help as ever, Rich. We'll see how it emerges. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)