User talk:Rich Farmbrough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Note
Email may very occasionally be delayed due to spam filtering.
Links
FAQ
Talk Archive Index
follow my blog

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Never fails to cheer me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC).

November edith-a-thons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #440[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Nate Borofsky albums[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Nate Borofsky albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Disambig-cleanup" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Disambig-cleanup. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Template:Disambig-cleanup until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November![edit]

AfroCine - bare logo.png

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap filler - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Wikidata weekly summary #441[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #442[edit]

"A Subaltern" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect A Subaltern. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 16#A Subaltern until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Civil parish bot[edit]

Hi. You seem to have been left off an original ping list for this one. Your involvement in place articles could suggest you might interested in this topic. Thanks. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_England/Parishes_RfC Acabashi (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ikidata weekly summary #443[edit]

Proposed deletion of Guillermo de Cun[edit]

Notice

The article Guillermo de Cun has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable; see WP:NOTMEMORIAL

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"ChAdOx1" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ChAdOx1. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 23#ChAdOx1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --TedEdwards 22:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ftd[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Ftd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --TheImaCow (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

"Boris J" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Boris J. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Boris J until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 15:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020[edit]

Nomination of William H. Nation for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William H. Nation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William H. Nation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lettlerhellocontribs 03:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #444[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed AndrwscAnetodeGoldenRingJzGLinguistAtLargeNehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Numbered navigation tag[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Numbered navigation tag has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

<div class="noprint right" style="margin:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 0|0.5em 0 0.5em 0.5em;">
{| style="font-size:85%; line-height:110%; max-width:175px;border:transparent;background:transparent; "
| style="text-align: center;" | 
| style="padding: 0 0.2em; vertical-align: middle" | {{Previous page}} • {{Next page}}
|- valign=middle
|}</div>
Template source posted above per your request. It looks like it was discovered due to the use of non-existing templates. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Sirouhi Belorian for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sirouhi Belorian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirouhi Belorian until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"St. Pauls school,Winchmore Hill,London" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect St. Pauls school,Winchmore Hill,London. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 7#St. Pauls school,Winchmore Hill,London until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Leschnei (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #445[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Solomon Islands football referees[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Solomon Islands football referees requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #446[edit]

Best wishes for the holidays[edit]

De aanbidding van de koningen Rijksmuseum SK-A-671.jpeg Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #447[edit]

Your draft article, Draft:Weather compensation[edit]

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Weather compensation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #448[edit]

A New Year With Women in Red![edit]

Happy New Year text 2.png
Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Proposed deletion of John Chaucombe[edit]

Notice

The article John Chaucombe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mbdfar (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Bustan Ketab ((publishing)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bustan Ketab ((publishing). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Bustan Ketab ((publishing) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #449[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #450[edit]

"1oo years war" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1oo years war. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 17#1oo years war until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adam Gutstein[edit]

Notice

The article Adam Gutstein has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP unreferenced and tagged for almost 10 years, no actual claim to notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong tags produced by Wikileaks edit filter[edit]

Hi, could you fix the wording of the tags produced by Wikileaks filter (Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Wikileaks_filter_(#1034)_is_misleading) as now it's inaccurate: it says that Wikileaks is deprected rather than unreliable. Alaexis¿question? 07:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #451[edit]

Category:Speculative fiction podcasts has been nominated for renaming[edit]

Category:Speculative fiction podcasts has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

RfD nominations you may be interested in[edit]

There are a whole bunch of redirects starting "Complete list of" that have been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24 which you may be interested in sharing your views on. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #452[edit]

February 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

"Countires of the world" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Countires of the world. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Countires of the world until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. JsfasdF252 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Formatting of centuries[edit]

re [1]. I am curious why did you replace numeric 17th to seventeenth. Per MOS:CENTURY, both formats are valid. Are there any grammatical preferences? Lembit Staan (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Rich Farmbrough#Things that stayed too long[edit]

You might be interested. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021[edit]

Nomination for merging of Template:Rewrite section[edit]

Template:Rewrite section has been nominated for merging with Template:Cleanup rewrite. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #453[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

John Eversley[edit]

Dear sir, I respect your work, but this must be the lightest stub I've ever seen. It really needs work. May I assist, or do you want to delete this? Bearian (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

By all means assist! It's a wiki. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Taxi Girl albums[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxi Girl albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #454[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Captain Tom (disambiguation)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Captain Tom (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ‑‑Neveselbert (mobile) (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Redirect from UK spelling" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Redirect from UK spelling. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Template:Redirect from UK spelling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Redirect from maiden name" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Redirect from maiden name. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Template:Redirect from maiden name until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #455[edit]

Category:Women in the The Troubles (Northern Ireland) has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Women in the The Troubles (Northern Ireland) has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Regards, SONIC678 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Decades in the the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Decades in the the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Regards, SONIC678 21:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Brooks[edit]

Hi, Rich Farmbrough. You created the article Andrew Brooks (scientist) on 8 February; it seems that we already have a rather detailed article on the same person under the title Andrew Brooks, created just a few days earlier. Content-wise your two sentences should be covered by that longer article but maybe the source you stated in your article might be added in that parallel article and Andrew Brooks (scientist) might be kept as a Wikipedia:Redirect. We also have Andrew Brooks (disambiguation) where you added a link to your article, so maybe the other article should be listed there instead and also "What links here" might have to be checked but as far as I can see, apart from that disambig page there is not much that links to your new article. So this looks like a relatively simple case of Wikipedia:Merging. --Proofreader (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is odd, I definitely looked for an existing article. Thanks for letting me know, I have made it into a redirect, I would have been fine with you doing the same. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC).
Thanks for the quick reaction. Just stumbled across that one while checking the entries in the categories, so I am more into maintenance and only notify authors accordingly. Sometimes you actually even have cases where people with the same name die on the same day, which is why I rather not interfere too much with the articles themselves. So thanks again for fixing that one. --Proofreader (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Template editor request[edit]

Hi and sorry for the intrusion, I was looking for an active editor I had noticed around who holds the template editor flag. I am looking to re-boot Wikipedia:WikiProject Country Music and need someone to remove "Inactive" from the {{WikiProject Country Music}} template banner. I would appreciate your help if possible. Have a great day JW 1961 Talk 22:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Good luck! All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC).
Thank you JW 1961 Talk 22:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

More Sauce[edit]

I saw you helped yourself to some of my sauce here so I added some more here. 79.70.188.241 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #456[edit]

March 2021 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook icon.jpg Facebook | Instagram.svg Instagram | Pinterest Shiny Icon.svg Pinterest | Twitter icon.png Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Troubles(?)[edit]

This change feels almost "microcosmic" of the article subject. Is there a reason to remove the more generic template and replace with a label discussed (as a point of contention) within the article itself? Guliolopez (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Guliolopez Both {{EngvarB}} and {{Use British English}} are very generic, if you feel the need you could fork the {{Use British English}} to {{Use Irish English}}. I doubt if there are a significant number of places where this would make a difference. I am not aware of any words that are spelled differently in formal writing in Irish English compared with other European varieties of English, which is the stated purpose of {{EngvarB}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
Seems I had a hand in this template many years ago. I'll try to use it on Irish articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
Thanks for the follow-up.
For Ireland-related articles (including those on Irish coins, Irish diaspora, Irish institutions and others where the ENGVAR is relatively well-established) it may, as you suggest, be best to use the "Irish English" template.
For Northern Ireland-related articles (including those on The Troubles, County Londonderry, Ulster and others where real-world and project-based contention is relatively well-documented) it may be worth considering whether to swap the generic template for the "British English" template.
While, as you say, there are limited linguistic or spelling differences, the terms "British" and "Irish" sometimes come with cultural and political baggage. Unrelated to spelling. Anyway, I'll get out of your way. Just a heads-up/thought-to-consider I guess... Guliolopez (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages translated from Võro Wikipedia[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages translated from Võro Wikipedia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Cosmetic editing, again[edit]

Hi! As far as I can see, this edit made no perceptible difference to the rendered page. Are you not under a permanent restriction from making such edits? I note that the restriction (the first of the four to which you are subject) specifically prohibits changes to the capitalisation of templates, but with that edit you changed {{short description}} to {{Short description}}. That edit is just one of many that made the same two trivial and unnecessary changes. At 17.36 UTC today you made 10 edits; how did you do that without using automated processes? Ping Ealdgyth, Mdaniels5757 and TonyBallioni, who participated in this discussion in April last year. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You are pointing to the wrong edit. The edit changes the category to Use British English, which changes the rendered page, and is not therefore a "cosmetic" edit.
As to automated processes, there is neither a prohibition in place relating to them, nor a necessity to resort to them them to make ten edits per minute.
Thanks for your encouragement.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
I wasn't going to get into this today (it's supposed to be my day to goof off with hubby) but ... The change in categories is not actually rendered - it's a hidden category in both cases. This is the previous version - note the "member of 34 hidden categories at the bottom which lists the cat as Category:Use British English from October 2013. After the edit - this is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Long_(artist)&diff=next&oldid=1001640912 diff - at the bottom are still listed 34 hidden categories and the category is unchanged - Category:Use British English from October 2013. Near as I can see... nothing has changed on the rendered page - even if we consider the hidden category a "rendered" change. I wish you'd spend as much time productively editing as trying to figure out ways to game things... it'd be a lot easier on everyone. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
No one is compelling you to get involved, nor yet to make ad hominem attacks.
Fixing an incorrect categorization is productive editing.
The category is changed, if you look at the "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" section in the link you gave, you will see {{Template:Use British English}} - despite the fact that it is not in the edit box. Welcome to the limitations of the WikiMedia software.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
Yes, wrong diff. See this one instead (sorry 'bout that). The edit does not change the rendered page, as Ealdgyth rightly says. The second of the four restrictions to which you are subject clearly states "... he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser"; if you aren't using that, what automated process are you using that so accurately reproduces its behaviour? It also reads "Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so". Where exactly is the demonstrable consensus that allows you repeatedly to change {{EngvarB}} to {{Use British English}}, even in articles such as Highland cattle where it is clearly inappropriate to do so? (per WP:TIES, if it's to use a specific subset of EngvarB, that should be Scottish English). You are clearly and specifically prohibited from messing with the capitalisation of templates, yet you continue to do so. You are clearly and specifically prohibited from "changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done", yet you continue to do so (here, for example). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome to further refine {{Use British English}} to {{Use Scottish English}}, {{Use English English}} and {{Use Welsh English}} if you wish. For me the utility in doing this is marginal, because the spelling does not vary significantly, if at all, between these varieties of English, especially in the formal register.
It appears you are searching for any ground that can result in action taken against me. There's not a lot I can do about that, but hope you will see this is not productive.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
(edit conflict) So it did not in fact impact the rendering on the page, which is what your editing restriction is for. To my knowledge you have never agreed that any of your ban violations are in fact ban violations, so I don’t think it’s productive to argue about that point with you. Since everyone else seems to agree it was cosmetic, I’ll go ahead and skip to the next question: Consensus in respect of Rich Farmbrough's editing restrictions shall be defined as approval at WP:BRFA or a formally closed WP:RFC with more than ten non-canvassed participants.
Can you please point to consensus for this edit as defined by your other editing restrictions? TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It did impact the rendering on the page. I'm sure you'll block me anyway one way or another. I fail to see how doing so will improve the encyclopaedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
21:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the discussion about whether this is cosmetic or not and what method you used to do the changes are ultimately irrelevant. What you did was a mass change. If you do a mass change, cosmetic or not, you need a consensus to support that work. Can you point to such a consensus? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
There is clearly consensus that articles should be correctly categorised. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
The restriction requires that you point to an explicit consensus in a BRFA or RfC for the specific changes you are making. This is now the fourth request for you to provide such a consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Block[edit]

Since the answer to the question asked by Tony and repeated by me, that is whether you have a discussion which supports the change you've done, has not been answered with a diff I'm assuming the answer is no and have blocked you for 1 month for violation of your community imposed editing restrictions. In a previous edit you said that you weren't going to edit in fear. Good. I think no editor should edit in fear. What I do hope you do is edit within community consensus which has been laid out rather extensively given your editing interests and style in the form of specific editing restrictions. If there is in fact a specific consensus that supports this change please point it to me and I will reverse this block. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I would still be interested to know if anyone actually believes that any of my edits have made the 'pedia worse rather than better.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, I do - on a net basis. If you consider any edit on their own on a +10 to -10 scale, where +10 is adding a new featured article and -10 is insidious vandalism in a the form of say, a long term hoax, your edits will fall in the 0 category. They don't change the encyclopedia for readers. I will accept a minor nudge to the positive category, per your arguments of usefulness - so perhaps a +0.1. However, if you are doing so by breaching your editing restrictions, you are doing your edits against the consensus of the community - not because the edit itself if against the consensus (which is debateable), but because you are the one performing it. Therefore, you are damaging the encyclopedia, and pushing the edit into the negative category - ergo, making the encyclopedia as a whole worse, rather than better. WormTT(talk) 11:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly so. This is purely discriminatory behaviour.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC).
Rich Farmbrough, you've missed my point. You are damaging the encyclopedia by making barely useful edits, which in turn cause controversy. WormTT(talk) 11:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I have a long term goal of having a Wikipedia free from errors, including grammatical, stylistic and factual. The Engvar family of tags are important to achieving this, and over 300,000 articles have an Engvar tag.
The purpose of the tags is to identify preferred variety of English, primarily to establish the correct spelling variety for certain words.
Without these tags it may not be possible to establish if an article is using the correct spelling. (Even with them it is hard problem.) Therefore changing a tag to reflect the most narrow version of English that we identify (but no narrower) is useful, not "barely" useful.
On the other side of your calculus is disruption. It seems to me that those challenging useful and positive work, let alone those destroying it are the people who are causing the disruption. It is as if you asked for someone voluntarily picking up litter from the streets to be arrested because he was wearing a Hawaiian shirt. Or perhaps, less neutrally, a large, red, letter "A". And there are enough short-sighted admins, and there is enough first mover advantage for this to be effective.
For shame.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC).
Rich, I'm going to take your analogy and run with it.
Firstly, you are not voluntarily picking up litter - that implies that everyone agrees with your actions. You are individually picking wildflowers, which some people agree are weeds. However, you are doing it on the side of a highway. People are concerned, because you are in the way and they're not even sure that the weeds need to be picked at all. You've been asked, multiple times, to stop doing it, but have instead moved to a different colour wildflower.
The police are eventually involved and you've been issued a ban on wildflower picking. Yet, you still insist of picking wildflower. I could even go on about your history, where you used to ride a lawnmower over all the wildflower, taking out the odd rose at the same time - but you think that didn't matter because you only killed one rose and got rid of thousands of wildflower.
So, it's not discriminatory behaviour, that someone else who happens to pick a wildflower doesn't get sanctioned for doing so and it's not about your Hawaiian shirt. It's about you not listening to everyone else and that's your problem not everyone else's.
What's more, given the perennial nature of these issues and your refusal to acknowledge that they are issues, I'm starting to believe that a 1 month block is insufficient, and perhaps something more indefinite might be appropriate. WormTT(talk) 11:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so. You would have to show me one of these mythical wildflowers to establish any chance credibility. Ideally one in the recent past, and ideally much more than one - sufficient to outweigh the gian hogweeds, but to even consider your extension (or perhaps perversion) of my analogy, at least one.
And threats, even - maybe especially - veiled ones, become you far less than a run-of-the-mill admin.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC).
Edits such as merely changing parameter names (especially just changing to a dash between two words) are pointless because they won't get noticed by a normal reader. They are negative to the project in the sense that you're merely increasing the memory usage on Wikipedia. Stick to your editing restrictions and community consensus. Violating your restrictions or community consensus instead of respecting them is only to get you blocked again. Appeal your restrictions if you want to get rid of them. Seek consensus if the community is against the type of edits you're intending to make. Heymid (contribs) 16:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
User talk:Heymid I agree. However the edit linked to by the OP is the Wrong Edit - not the one they meant to talk about.
The change you see there is a matter for dispute elsewhere, because someone is changing all these automatically, and with no other changes. The best way to make this kind of change is while changing something else more substantive, and indeed many editors are doing this. A clean-up task for the last 20%, 10% or 5% would then be a good idea, to ensure the change is complete.
Ironically this is the approach I have taken for the last decade or so, however some people get very upset by this.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC).
Why would you even be bothered with making edits that won't have a visible effect on the page, let alone automatically? Try writing/editing content instead. Now, that's real usefulness. Heymid (contribs) 11:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
If you read my reply to you above, you will see that I did no such thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC).
Well, it seems the main problem here was that you went ahead and carried out systematic mass changes without the approval of community consensus, which is against your editing restrictions. Heymid (contribs) 21:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Let me just add that this edit did, in fact, absolutely nothing to the rendered page for non-logged in readers, because you merely changed hidden categories. Until you start admitting to the issues that led to the block instead of attacking or blaming others, I suggest you remain blocked. Heymid (contribs) 12:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
It has been previously agreed that changing hidden categories does constitute an allowed edit, though there is no reason you should know this.
I would rather you not say that I am attacking or blaming others, unless you can back that up.
I would also rather you not imply that I am duplicitous. <Thanks for fixing that.>
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC).
It's rather odd for Rich to state if anyone actually believes that any of my edits have made the 'pedia worse rather than better when the block comes to simple accountability. – The Grid (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is it odd? There are edge cases where it is a good idea to block people who improving the project. I don't agree that this is one. Rather this is a case where the processes themselves have been brought into disrepute. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC).
The processes haven't been brought into disrepute, they work correctly. The problem is, you have created needless work for other people, because a canned summary like "cleaned up" and "fixed typo" is exactly what vandals do, and are impossible to distinguish from good faith edits without a human editor checking. Some of us do keep an eye on articles we have spent a long time working on, because we don't like people laughing at Wikipedia saying "Ha ha, they call this a Featured Article but look at these errors! Ha ha ha!" (in this case, the probable cause is the editor who improved it to FA in 2006 hasn't been around for 10 years and most people editing the article since don't know or care what FAC is) and all the time you make insignificant edits with canned edit summaries that don't provide any tangible benefit to the encyclopedia, you waste people's time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a practical example I saw on my watchlist here. The edit summary "clean up" is unhelpful and means I have to spend time working out a) what the change was and b) whether the article continues to meet the good article criteria after it. Your assertion that the flags help the reader identify the variety of English used is, in practice, incorrect, and does not prevent me from having to revert an edit with the summary "rv, using British English" every now and then, because human beings do not notice that. Spelling and grammar fixes are too sophisticated to be able to fixed by machine (or machine-like) tasks and activities.

"The Engvar family of tags are important to achieving this, and over 300,000 articles have an Engvar tag." - No, no, no - the way to achieve this is to welcome more editors who are good at fixing spelling and grammar. Here's an example.

So I agree with Worm's assertion that your edits that specifically led to this block are neutral and neither improve nor degrade the encyclopedia - they are simply a giant time sink. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's reasonable to say that the edit summary was unhelpful, I'm sure that I could have done better in that respect.
You claim that the tags are of no use to man nor bot. I respectfully disagree. I have always considered them primarily metadata, better placed at the end of the article with the "etceteras" - others who consider them instructions to editors prefer placing them at the top. That's fine.
There are many ways this could be used, for example a browser plug-in which switches the spelling dictionary, a gadget which changes the edit window background according to variety of English, an edit filter that warns if a spelling change has been made in the wrong direction.
It is, of course, fallacious to say that because you have sometimes to revert an engvar error, that the tags are of no use in that respect. You would need a proper control and to compare the rate of errors between the groups - this would not be a hard exercise.
Well done for welcoming users. I doubt, though, that any one "spotted" three occurrences of "to to" in a minute without using a search tool. They will have seen many false positives (Occitan literature is a true positive). Some terms have less false positives, "Cambidge" and "Oxfrod" for example - which I have fixed many occurrences of on many Wikipedias, what you would doubtless call a "machine like" activity. (But Ray Cambidge is a very real, and very correctly spelled person.) (Note: there are now 5 fresh mis-spellings of "Cambidge" on en:wiki and 7 of "Oxfrod", which I will not be able to fix for a month.)
I should note that I have welcomed thousands of new users, though I have not targeted them for their spelling abilities.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC).

You are at the end[edit]

Rich Farmbrough, I beg of you to read this carefully. I have watched your situation for many years now. I have at many junctures felt you haven't only been treated unfairly, you have outright been abused. Worse, such abuse has been supported as right and proper. There were times when I was flat out amazed that you continued editing here. There is a slippery slope tendency on this project that when a person is under censure of some kind, the community feels at liberty to accuse that person of more and more malfeasance, whether justified or not, and it sticks. Your only choice, and I do mean ONLY choice, is to read the sanctions against you and follow each one to the absolute letter, very...VERY...broadly construed. If even for a nanosecond there is the slightest, tiniest little doubt about what a sanction means in a given scenario, you have to stop what you were planning on doing. Then, seek help to clarify...and do not do the edits you were planning without getting crystal clear clarification. If you never get clarification, you never do the edits. Regardless of the veracity of this block, regardless of whether your edits are justified or not, regardless of whether a huge number of great wrongs have been committed against you, you are at the end. You can't argue your way out of this. You can't justify your way out of this. You can't convince people with another rephrasing of your stance to show them that your way is the way forward. It doesn't matter if your edits are 100% perfect. It doesn't matter if the newest editor, making their first ever edit, would get applauded for doing the edit you are making which would cause controversy if you did it. It doesn't matter if you created the best featured article ever, from scratch, in one single edit. It isn't a question of whether your edits are proper or not. That has absolutely no meaning now with respect to you. There is no possible defense of your edits if there is the tiniest, slightest question about whether they conform to your sanctions or not. I will repeat; you are at the end. WTT noted above that an indefinite block is possibly a better solution. You've been on this project for almost 17 years. You're one of the most prolific editors on this project ever. You are on an extremely unstable cliff edge with the edge crumbling beneath your feet and a thousand meter drop below you. The slightest motion on your part will end your massive devotion to this project. There will be no coming back from an indefinite block. You have been given countless opportunities to comply with your sanctions. You can either flawlessly comply with your sanctions or end your career on this project. Choose wisely. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I have considered this matter carefully over the years, and come to very similar conclusions. That is why I have the quote at the top of this page.
I have always hoped (and often believed) that we were supporting one another to produce an encyclopaedia, but - to extend your analogy - I know that there are enough people who would like to give me the extra shove into the abyss.
If I come back from this block and fix one typo, and get indeffed for it, it's still one typo fixed. The alternative is to be paralysed by fear and achieve not even that.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC).
Rich, I think you're one of the best editors on Wikipedia, and on the handful of occasions I've spoken to you in the Pendrel's Oak over the years, it's always been a pleasant and fruitful conversation - indeed, just about everybody I know who's met you would agree you're a nice guy. I don't personally want to see you blocked, but I can't unblock you without a good consensus to do so. So I'm simply trying to play Devil's Advocate for a bit and explain why people are upset with some of the edits you made. It's true that metadata may be able to provide a user interface extension, but it doesn't imply it will or that everyone will use it over the current established method of looking at diffs of raw text - and frankly if you think the WMF is going to deliver that successfully, then you've got more confidence in them than I have. Unless you can appreciate why those advocating a block are doing so, I can't unblock you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I do appreciate why, and broadly there are three classes of issue that arise (please do tell me if you think I'm missing something):
  1. Cases where I have got something wrong, or misjudged something. Example: the edit summary you mentioned. I will always fix this sort of thing as soon as I can.
  2. Cases where someone is annoyed, perhaps understandably, because of something that is correct. This can be because they don't understand (e.g. the ISBN printed on a book can be wrong, or can be hard to read), because there is some WP:OWNership issue, or because of some side effect (like watch lists). These issues can be resolved with good will on both sides.
  3. Cases where someone is simply looking for any "rule breaking" regardless of the effect - whether by me specifically, or anyone in particular. It's not easy to tell whether they see this as an end to a means, I. E. pushing me further towards that cliff edge for personal or project reasons, or they are just rules obsessed.
We are all human and make mistakes. I don't think mine are particularly egregious. In the above discussion, we have one editor quoting the wrong edit, one or two who don't understand how the editor interface works, and one who doesn't understand why {{Use Scottish English}} is exactly the same as {{Use Welsh English}} from the point of view of categorization. (They are both redirects … and {{Use English English}} is up for deletion as we speak.) Making these types of mistake in normal course of business might be considered minor, but to not be absolutely careful in these types of discussion does seem to me egregious. These canards will be repeated, indeed already have been, even if I refute them.
The history is now so deep and convoluted that it appears there is no unwinding it, and no-one really has the stomach for it, least of all me. I did manage to resolve the ArbCom stuff a few years back, but subsequent attempts to resolve issues met with poisoning-the-well attacks. Moreover this sort of stuff is boring and unproductive.
There is, it seems, no road back to normality in Wikiland.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC).

A road back to normality[edit]

I've been lurking, and hadn't planned to jump in, but your last comment made me change my mind. I've been on both sides of this with you, at one time criticizing cosmetic edits done via AWB, and at another, editing a number of articles on your behalf by applying a series of bulleted wish-list items you had created here while under some other block, until someone linked me to WP:PROXYING and I had to stop. Others have said enough about the current situation, probably better than I could have, so I won't belabor that by adding my own. (I especially liked Worm's lovely extended metaphor, which made me want to run right over to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser and immediately add WP:LAWNMOWER as a shortcut, but I've so far resisted the temptation.)

Anyway the point I wanted to make, in response to your comment about "no road back to normality" is that there is, and it's called WP:CLEANSTART. I'm sure you're aware of it, so I won't go into long explanations, but I urge you to consider it. It would also effectively deal with some of the valid concerns that Hammersoft wrote about in their heartfelt cri de coeur above regarding the taint—deserved, or not—which may grow after accusations or blocks seem to take on a momentum of their own regardless of their final disposition. This is exactly what a clean start is best at; all that will be washed away, and you get a, well, clean slate.

Curiously, and entirely coincidentally, I happened upon a brief essay called Quiet return, that has a few words to say about the topic of clean starts. [a] I feel a clean start could really work for you, and I hope you consider it. I have some concerns if you are truly able to abandon some previously well-worn paths you've traveled, which is a must, if this is to work for you. Selfishly, I also want to be able to lurk, and see you "succeeding" in your new identity, but the whole point of a clean start is that if done properly, I will neither recognize you, nor be able to congratulate you on a job well done, and your future contributions to the encyclopedia. [b] If you end up going that route, under your "Retired" template, a little addition saying that you will be looking into clean start, would be nice to see.

There have been times you've annoyed the crap out of me, but I'd still like to see you improving the encyclopedia, because I know you are capable of it. It's possible that that is no longer feasible under this username, and may have to be under another one, and if that works out for you, I will be as pleased as anyone. In sum, there is a road back to normality, perhaps a difficult road, so the question is, are you willing to take that road, and stick to it without wandering off into the weeds? I hope so. What more can I say, than, "all the best!" Mathglot (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ This came about, because when I wanted to link WTT earlier in this post, I was unsure of spelling and capitalization, and the way I usually resolve that, is via the search bar, because it does a good job of auto-complete suggestions. And so it did again, this time providing the exact result I hoped for; but right under the suggestion for WTT's user name, there was the listing for this essay, which could not have been more appropriate. If that's not serendipity, then I don't know what is.
  2. ^ I'd almost like to see if we couldn't establish a WP:CLEANESCROW concept; a sort of dropbox, or reporting process or something, where admins with high perms could make up a little annual report with no identifying information, saying, "the editor formerly known as Rich Farmbrough has been successfully editing in new areas for some time this year, and wishes his former contacts 'all the best', and wishes he could say so personally." That would give me a lot of satisfaction.
  • No. All the sanctions on Rich listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions are indefinite in nature. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
    Oh dear, I fear I've held out false hope, then; my apologies, Rich. Looks like at least some of the restrictions may be appealed a year after, which expired recently; not sure about the other. Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mathglot No worries, I was too busy to follow the discussion, but I have of course considered the four obvious identity change options. As well as a "secret restart" breaking the rules, I see no reason why my edits should not be under my own name. I have a limited amount of time and energy available for Wikipedia, and I don't intend to expend it concealing my identity, even under some kind of Alias Smith and Jones amnesty.
In much the same way I'm not enamoured with the idea of trying to get editing restrictions overturned. I have tried this before, and succeeded with the various ArbCom findings, but an attempt to get a clean slate met with poisoning the well reactions. To do it properly requires a huge amount of research, as everyone (including me) mis-remembers what happened, if they in fact ever knew. (Yesterday, for example, I discovered a highly salient fact about a recent incident, which I was hitherto unaware of.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC).
I'm glad you enjoyed the analogy, Mathglot. My quiet return essay is pragmatic in nature, and so as much as Rich isn't eligibly for a Clean Start, per Hammersoft - a quiet return only has one requirement.. don't get noticed. I'm afraid I wouldn't recommend it for Rich, for a couple of reasons. First, I don't believe he would want to let go of his 1.7 million edit history. Secondly, he would have to be un-noticeable and if Rich was able to be un-noticeable, he wouldn't need a fresh start. People have a lot of respect for Rich and are willing to give a lot of leeway, which is why he's still on this project despite many blocks, including a year long one, community editing restrictions and an Arbcom Case.
The way forward for Rich is twofold - deferring to others opinion and attention to detail. By the former I mean ensuring he has explicit consensus (including a diff link) for any group of changes he wants to make and for the latter, double checking each edit against his editing restrictions. WormTT(talk) 09:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
**** the 1.7 million edit history. I think that's used against me more than for me! If you look in the history of the appropriate stats page, you'll see that I elected to remain anonymous even at the "top" of that table for years - until someone accused my of trying to "conceal" my edits!
And as for being unnoticeable, that would involve leaving errors, great and small, unresolved, deliberately. Not doing that.
Moreover I have chosen to edit under my own name, I take responsibility for my edits. I have had my identity subpoenaed from the Foundation by some numpty solicitors - I doubt they "revealed" it.
As to the explicit consensus, I followed that ridiculous ER to the letter (and spirit), and yet the editor who instigated it still went on a fresh AN/I rant, involving dozens of editors from which a grand total of four(!) editors supported Barkeep's further restriction (apparently meant to help me) which requires an RFC with ten(!) or more editors, for, effectively, every edit I make! Yes I could maybe comply with such, but the burden would be intolerable, if not for me, certainly for almost any other editor. And as such I don't think I should go along with it.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC).
I think your best bet at this stage is to focus on your own behavior instead of that of others. You may be partially right, but it isn't gonna help your case, I'm afraid. Heymid (contribs) 10:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Assuredly, being right has never been enough. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC).

Indefinite[edit]

Rich, I am sorry that you considered my statement that "something more indefinite might be appropriate" to be a veiled threat - you're right, they're not becoming. However, your statements above that you 'don't think you should go along with your editing restrictions' explicitly as well as the other statements that you have made in this section - I simply do not believe that you will abide by these restrictions after a month. As such, I'm altering your block to indefinite - that is "the indefinite period until I (or another administrator) have confidence that you will abide by your restrictions, or an alternative solution presents itself" WormTT(talk) 11:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me just add that I would very much like to see you back on the editing field again. It would be a shame to lose your contribution forever. I hope you will come clean and address the issues that have gotten us to this very point. Heymid (contribs) 11:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to discuss this with you in more depth, but I simply do not have the time currently. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC).
Absolutely - I have not taken this decision lightly and would happily see you return to editing. Feel free to ping me when you do have sufficient time. WormTT(talk) 11:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #457[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said ZebedeeHiberniantearsLear's FoolOnlyWGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Todo Template Suggested for deletion in CKB-Wiki[edit]

Hello i want to inform you that Template:todo has been suggested for deletion i think the template is related to you it is from CKB wikipedia [here], thank you. Sakura emad (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sakura emad This is simply a redirect, I suspect all uses now use the better name. Thanks for letting me know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC).

The Ninja[edit]

@Jack Sebastian: I noticed you tagged some statements in that article. Possibly this ref. might help. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC).