User talk:Rich Farmbrough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Helpful Pixie Bot)
Jump to: navigation, search
Note
Email may very occasionally be delayed due to spam filtering.




Links
FAQ
Talk Archive Index
follow my blog
This page-

Drama free days
361

Nominated for adminship[edit]

Hi Rich! I've nominated you for restoration of adminship. (About time I kept my promise to do so:-)) David Cannon (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It will be instructive to see what happens. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC).
Good luck. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rich, I'll lend my support. Good luck! Audit Guy (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC).
  • @Davidcannon: The new RfA was reverted shortly after it was initiated as it was located on the page of Rich's old RfA. I have copied the nomination to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 and formatted it. When ready for !voting, please transclude this RfA to the main RfA page and follow the instructions at the top of the request page. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. I have accepted the nom, and answered the standard questions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC).
    Would you like me to transclude the nomination? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    That would be good, thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC).
    Done, good luck! Thine Antique Pen (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    well it was unanimous last time, it is unanimous so far this time! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC).
    Hi Rich, So sorry to note the negative trend. I wanted to contribute but I don't think my supporting vote would make a difference! Perhaps, should things change......My best wishes to you though. Audit Guy (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I've put in my bit. Hope it helps. Best wishes Rich! Audit Guy (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, your !vote is important. If there is a broadly 50/50 split that is valuable data - in fact whatever the result is the information is useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
  • Perhaps this came a little too early for some people ... try again in maybe 2022 ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, to influence current affairs it is better to do something while we are still alive to do it. -- (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    I'll second that! Audit Guy (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    There are certainly one or two "opposes" who suggest another year or two would change their minds. While a "pass" seems incredibly unlikely, the current balance is far more positive than certain people have suggested it would be. Admin tools are useful, but not essential. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
    It isn't so much that it came too early, but that there is a bloc of voters at contentious RFAs who will oppose the first time and support the second almost irrespective of the gap since the last incident. Hopefully this RFA will pass, but if it doesn't another in 2016 will probably pass and certainly do much better than this, whereas I'm pretty sure that if Rich had waited another year before running there would have been some people opposing because in effect it was his first attempt to regain the tools. Sad that this sort of thing is necessary, but if you let people vent their spleen in this RFA and then keep your nose clean for a few months the next RFA will be much easier. Nothing really negative is being diffed from the last 24 months, and unless someone finds something recent then I would hope the percentage of support will steadily rise, probably to more than 60% but it could even end in the discretion zone. ϢereSpielChequers 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out at the Teahouse[edit]

I mean that sincerely. You were brave to agree to be nominated for RfA, and you are handling things with aplomb. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Feedback is not only supportive, but useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

Undoing a move you made back in 2008[edit]

Hi Rich, could you move Good manufacturing practice back to Good Manufacturing Practice? The capitalization is pretty much standard worldwide. Thanks, Heaviside glow (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking:
  • Ngrams says otherwise (area under blue curve plus area under red curve > area under green curve).
  • Wikipedia style is to "Use lowercase, except for proper names: Titles are written in sentence case." See WP:LOWERCASE.
  • I think you would need an admin to move the page, since the redirect has been edited.
Sorry I can't be of more help.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

Your quotes of the day[edit]

Hi, Rich. One of your quotes of the day is "Editors are allowed to make many mistakes, administrators relatively few, checkusers and arbitrators almost none, and that is as it should be." (Rich Farmbrough) Since it's by you, and thereby you don't have to hold the wording sacrosanct, have you thought of souping it up with the addition "checkusers and arbitrators almost none, the Founder again many"? I realize you'd run into trouble with the "that is as it should be" bit… yeah. Never mind, then. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

Face-smile.svg We all have our takes on Mr. Jimbo, and I have remonstrated with him more than once. But, though I won't change the quote, I do think he has a license to screw up on-wiki a little. He is not heavily involved with the project in a hands-on way, and yet people expect him to make pronouncements and "take action" on whatever their particular issue is. Inevitably if these were simple issues the community would have fixed them already. The best we can do is hope that all our future mistakes are small ones, with no lasting ill effect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC).
That is a perceptive comment, Rich, and I thank you for it. All the best to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Samantha Smith[edit]

(also asking others who could help)

Can you take a look at Samantha Smith? It's a featured article but a fresh pair of eyes is always good. I'm concerned that with the 30th anniversary of her death in August, there'll be increased articles in the press and we'll have "Saint Samantha" vs "Soviet stooge" edit wars. Paul Austin (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I have added the article to my watch-list. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC).

Very Strong Support[edit]

Hello Rich,

I voted for you - Very Strong Support! You will be an outstanding Administrator. Very respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Every vote is much appreciated. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC).
I too !voted support. Whatever the outcome of the RfA I hope that it will not diminish your enthusiasm for the project. Many can't see past your past difficulties, but I can't see them affecting your trustworthiness with admin tools, hence my !vote. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I can assure you I am encouraged by not just the support !votes, but by the supportive things both neutral and oppose voters have said. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC).
I am personally glad to see the trend is going from oppose / neutral to support. Hopefully, the balance will tip enough into the "bureaucrat's discretion" range and you'll get your tools back. Good luck! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Ceradon 20 2 6 91 20:49, 12 July 2015 6 days, 13 hours no report
Cyberpower678 71 16 9 82 00:53, 10 July 2015 3 days, 17 hours no report
Rich Farmbrough 2 95 49 13 66 12:54, 5 July 2015 Pending closure... no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 06:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


According to the tool I would need another 20/21 [30!] supports without any opposes to get into the usual "discretion" area. I am not holding my breath.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
I share the same sentiments as Ritchie333. I truly hope that this Rfa will be treated differently in that a separate committee can deliberate fairly based on the facts and merits of the nomination for a fully informed decision, i.e. "a net positive". Very best wishes and good luck! Audit Guy (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What I think is wrong with RfA is that you can get twice as many support votes as oppose and yet still garner only 67% of the vote, below the 70% suggested. But hopefully bureaucrat discretion will come into play which something approaching that sort of result. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What's significant is that people who were opposing (eg: Laser Brain) have changed their mind and switched to support. There have been quite a few of those, and I think a few more of that will tip the balance. At least now I would expect a close as "no consensus", definitely not a fail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There are also some "not yet"s, at a guess about 10 "not yet"s would put it in the usual discretion zone, whether would then count as as a "not yet" close I cannot say. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

Template:DecadesAndYears/addepoch listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:DecadesAndYears/addepoch. Since you had some involvement with the Template:DecadesAndYears/addepoch redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You can {{g7}} these if you wish. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of George Palmer at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you bot. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
The bot gave it to many in error today ;) - I wondered if I should campaign for your RfA but it's to hot, - the next one will succeed, if not this one. I asked several people how to phrase "victim of an institution" more politely, - there is even a barnstar for it. I remember your support on top of my talk, - thank you, lone supporter ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I think if you campaign you automatically loose.... Face-smile.svg Helpful Pixie Bot was awarded a Purple Star, by User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman. Note that it's role in world peace means that it has both an Islamic and a Jewish barnstar. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
I think you are right that if the candidate campaigns it's an automatic loss. As I am not the most respected woman, my support may also foster protest votes. The last one for whom I spoke collected not enough trust but took it with grace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #165[edit]

Samuel Judah[edit]

FYI I'm pretty sure he was born in 1798. That is what is listed for him at Ancestry, and it cites: American National Biography. 24 volumes. Edited by John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. (AmNatBi); Dictionary of American Biography. Volumes 1-20. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928-1936. (DcAmB) The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Volume 24. New York: James T. White & Co., 1935. Use the Index to locate biographies. (NatCAB 24) Who Was Who in America. A component volume of Who's Who in American History. Historical Volume, 1607-1896. Revised Edition. Chicago: Marquis Who's Who, 1967. МандичкаYO 😜 03:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikimandia I suspect there is confusion with Samuel Judah (b. 1799). However the source that gave two alternative dates is, on it's face, reliable, and the provision of day and month indicates that they were looking at conflicting sources. IIRC Judah graduated in 1816 which would make 1798 more likely. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Rich, you did brilliantly well in your RFA. Regardless of whether in the next few hours the 'crats decide whether to accept you are worthy, or decline this time on a technicality, you deserve a round of applause from the community for your efforts and resilience in tough circumstances. Face-smile.svg (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, the level of support (including moral support among opposes and neutrals) was very heartening. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
Hi Rich, I would like to add that you fought the RfA battle well and I hope that it works out. Even if it doesn't, may I offer you my best wishes going forward! Audit Guy (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk Back[edit]

Sir, Talk Back @ Talk:Battle of Longewala MCIWS (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC) MCIWS (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

No idea which way the RfA is going to go, but judging by the process so far, I'm guessing you need some kitten.

Stuartyeates (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! The process has been much better than I was lead to believe it might be. Very few crossed the floor from "nice " to "nasty" and even they had their reasons, insufficient though they may have been. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC).