User talk:Rich Farmbrough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Note
Email may very occasionally be delayed due to spam filtering.



Contents

Links
FAQ
Talk Archive Index
follow my blog
This page-

Drama free days
1047
01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31  
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 12:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


Corrour Bothy, Scottish Highlands
Corrour Bothy, Scottish Highlands


Text of message to JSTOR[edit]

This was blocked by their spam filter.

--begins--

English Wikipedia makes many references to Aluka.org (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aluka.org for a list) - mostly to the African Plants collection.

I have transitioned the relevant specimen pages to plants.jstor.org. The remainder require an understanding of the new naming scheme at the appropriate jstor sites, compared to the naming scheme at aluka.org.

I would be grateful if you could supply me with this information.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Farmbrough

--ends--


RfA[edit]

Have you ever considered re-running? I think you might pass this time.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would be willing to run again. I'd need a quiet time to keep up with the RFS. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC).

February 2017 at Women in Red[edit]

LadyHeadSilhouette2.svg
Ruth Behar.jpg


February 2017

Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons
Faciliated by Women in Red

Women in Red logo.svg

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikidata weekly summary #245[edit]

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.1[edit]

Newsletter Nr 1 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the very first newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, see below)

Progress report:

Since the Projects very first edit 9 december 2002 by User:Dan Koehl, which eventually became the WikiProject Genealogy, different templates were developed, and the portal Portal:Genealogy was founded by User:Michael A. White in 2008. Over the years a number of articles has been written, with more or less association to genealogy. And, very exciting, there is a proposal made on Meta by User:Another Believer to found a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, read more at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project where you also can support the creation with your vote, in case you havnt done so already.

Future:

The future of the Genealogy project on the English Wikipedia, and a potential creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input.

You can

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy founder and coordinator Dan Koehl

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery Dan Koehl (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Fastily effect[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Wikipedia:Fastily effect, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fastily effect and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Fastily effect during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: I declined the tagging because I'm assuming good faith that you didn't create this as an attack page. Since you have proven your point though, can we delete it as G7? Regards SoWhy 07:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure my point is proven (see my comment on Fastily's page for what my point is) - or to be more accurate, that it has been taken on board by the community at large. Indeed the current Arb case re:Magioladitis indicates that it has not.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC).

Rich, I had similar thoughts today. I would call it the magnifying glass effect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #246[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #247[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka (3rd nomination)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka (3rd nomination). As you have participated in a previous AfD for this article, you may be interested in commenting on this third nomination. Thank you. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 00:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Umborne Brook[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Umborne Brook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Jolly Ω Janner 09:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
Welcome to...
Women's History Month worldwide online editathon
Facilitated by Women in Red
  • March 2017
    AF Logo+Mark 1.png
    La mujer que nunca conociste logo 2017.jpg
  • Featuring: "Art+Feminism" and "The Women You Have Never Met"
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages too

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikidata weekly summary #248[edit]

Peritrich nuclear code[edit]

Many thanks for bringing this mini-project up to date! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC).
I also like your table, though the colour would need to be augmented with a textual cue, for accessibility reasons. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC).
Thank you Rich! About the colors, I just fit to the ones already and standardly used in the genetic code tables. All the best! Manudouz (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #249[edit]

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

Benson article[edit]

Please sir, your article on the author "Benson" is very poorly written, you have been editing for a decade + before me so I can't really tell you much. Article lacks citation, article has Poor punctuations, subject of article barely passes WP:GNG, a new editor can err in this manner but an experienced editor like yourself should know that before an article goes live it should be perfected, upon orientation Wikipedia makes us understand that we are not engaging in a race and you shouldn't have to put up articles urgently, I suggest you at least furnish your articles with proper reference so as to eliminate notability issues if you want to keep creating articles like the aforementioned article Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve the article. Compare, for example with this one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC).
(talk page watcher) For the benefit of anyone else curious, this appears to be about Benson E. Hill. PamD 22:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Port Isaac[edit]

...is being promoted on Windows 10. Interesting to see the pageviews.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC).

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.2[edit]

Newsletter Nr 2 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the second newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

Progress report:

In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well talking in chat mode about the potential new wiki, a new irc channel has been setup, and you are welcome to visit and try it out at: #wikimedia-genealogyconnect

(In case you are not familiar with IRC, or would prefer some info and intro, please see Wikipedias IRC tutorial)

At m:Talk:Wikimedia_genealogy_project#Wikimedia_user_group is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia user group: please submit comments and suggestions, and whether you would like to be a member in such a group. Prime goal for the group is the creation of a new, free, genealogy wiki, but there is also a discussion weather we should propose a new project or support the adoption of an existing project?

Read more at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project where you also can support the creation with your vote, in case you haven't done so already.

Future:

The future of the Genealogy project, and creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input.

You can

Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Wikidata weekly summary #250[edit]

Listas parameter work[edit]

Hi Rich, could you take a quick look at this and tell me if I'm doing this correctly? I'd like to help eliminate the backlog, but I want to make sure I'm going about it properly. Lepricavark (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've got the hang of it now, aside from one question. In an article with a parenthetical description after the name, such as Rich Rodriguez (baseball), am I supposed to include the parenthetical material in the listas parameter? Lepricavark (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
After some consideration a couple of months ago, it seems that the answer is no - it's not necessary (any more). It seems that the software will sort identical "listas" values as if the article name were appended. This provides the same sort order as if we had included the parenthetical. And most people probably don't include it so it makes sense to go witth that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Lepricavark (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Denton Halt railway station[edit]

Hi Rich; please revert your move of Denton Halt railway station - we've been carefully moving them in the other direction for some years now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have done so. I can see no reason to disambiguate a halt though. It's like saying "Denton Station station". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC).
Thank you; see WP:NCUKSTATIONS - the thing about halts is that the word "Halt" was normally actually shown on the nameboards on the platforms. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Like with universities. So perhaps we should have "Cambridge University university" or "Warwick University redbrick university". While a fait accompli was achieved in 2007, no consensus was arrived at on the talk page of the guideline you refer to: and if it had been I would argue that names ending in Station, Halt, Junction, Interchange, Terminus and the like should be excluded, for reasons of redundancy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC).

Note to self[edit]

Chage to numbered list. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #251[edit]

Spelling of Encyclopædia Britannica categories[edit]

I see you moved category "1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica articles with no significant updates‎" to "1911 Encyclopædia Britannica articles with no significant updates‎". I didn't see any discussion on this change (I created the category and I'm still populating it) but maybe I missed it. @PBS:, are you aware? And I concur that the æ spelling is strictly correct. I have AWB paste-more setting that uses the "ae" spelling and there are still 417 pages with that spelling. Should they all be edited - is this a work in progress, or is the category redirect supposed to be adequate?

Also, there is still a notable inconsistency. Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica contains 14 subcategories, some with ae and some with æ. Do you plan to rename them all? David Brooks (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Brooks "WP:BEANS"! @Rich Farmbrough Please do not rename any other of these categories without a consensus to do so.
There was a WP:RM AT Talk:Encyclopædia_Britannica#Requested move initiated by my in June 2013 to move Encyclopædia Britannica to Encyclopaedia Britannica which was closed with no consensus. So there is no consensus to use Encyclopædia Britannica over "Encyclopaedia Britannica" and for these hidden maintenance templates I think that having the characters "ae" available on the keyboard outweighs the pedantic use of "æ", so I would support a move back for this template. -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
The vast majority of the hidden categories are only added by templates, therefore there is no difficulty over keyboards etc.
Yes the name of the work is "Encyclopædia Britannica", correcting a mis-spelling seems like a good idea. I am fixing the mis-spellings in main-space, though it may take some time (this will include the category). This is something I did a few years ago, it is surprising how many have appeared since. Similarly there were mis-spellings of various other encyclopaedias that should be "Encyclopedia" - I will also look at those if I get time.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
I agree. The correct spel;ing is Encyclopædia Britannica, and when I see it misspelled I make the correction, too. 7&6=thirteen () 21:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm only mildly opposed to neutral on this, but I would have appreciated a discussion or announcement because, as I said, I have AWB text-paste set up with the "ae" spelling. I spelled the category that way because the majority of EB1911-related categories separate the vowels. If you're willing to do the work of editing 400+ pages and the templates, go ahead. I also endorse PBS's comment about difficulty of typing ("the vast majority" doesn't mean "all"), although that's mitigated because I rely on the AWB paste, or copy-paste from somewhere else. David Brooks (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I have wrapped the category up into a template {{EB1911 article with no significant updates}}, this solves the problem for both parties. The name of the category no longer appears on the page, so if will not register if someone in the future does an AWB search for "Encyclopaedia Britannica", or "Encyclopædia Britannica", and it will allow for any future expansion of the template for example adding a notes= parameter to allow notes to be kept inside the template, rather than as has been done up to now with them being added as hidden comments after the category, and also perhaps the adding of a date parameter so that it is known when the template was added. These issues can be discussed on the talk page of the template. -- PBS (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I Was going to suggest that it should be triggered by {{EB1911}}, as a separate issue, but I'm sure this will work nicely. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC).
Sounds good. Existing items have been moved. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC).
Thanks much, PBS. You've done the job I briefly considered but just got too lazy, and thanks for editing the 400+ articles. I'll comment more later (out of time this morning) but a brief note: separately, Trivialist has been tidying up by editing Rich's new category to the old one (not a criticism; I assume he has not seen PBS's update). As a result there are still 9 articles with the raw Category markup. I'll change them to the template later unless someone else finds them. David Brooks (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Correct; I was just cleaning up soft-redirected categories. (Needed something to do for a few minutes. :) ) Trivialist (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It would have been nice if one of the above editors had mentioned that the incorrect spelling has been restored. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC).
Thank you, and PBS and Trivialist, for paying attention to this dusty corner of WP. I've made a few edits to the docs for the category and template, and fixed those 9 stray articles that used the category directly; I'll keep an eye out for recurrences.
Rich, that's true, but the ae versus æ spelling is an orthogonal point and would require revisiting the non-consensus proposal from 2013. As nobody seemed energized by the inconsistency among categories (see here), I really don't see the need for effort. Countering PBS's point, though: I never type out these category names in full. I either auto-complete, copy-paste, or use macros.
Just a reminder of how I see the difference between the category and the {{Update-EB}} flag. The category is for articles like "Jean-Claude-Marie-Achille Idiot (1742–1807) was a French poet. He is best remembered for the epic C'est trop long." (which is almost certainly still true). The emphatic template is for "Bhuger supports an industry of rice and tanning. Its sulphurous springs are known for curing women's ailments." (which may still be true for all I know, but probably not).
Finally, I'm not sure that {{Update-EB}} with section=yes does the right thing category-wise, but it's rare. David Brooks (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I think on the whole we have moved forward, which is a Good Thing. I'm not too bothered about the naming of hidden maintenance cats, though I feel rather lazy for not going and filing a comprehensive rename request. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC).

Genealogy project need your vote for creation of an email list[edit]

Newsletter Nr 3 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the third newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

Request:

In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well as taking new, important steps towards a creation of a new project site, we need to make communication between the users easier and more effective.

At Mail list on meta is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia email list. In order to request the creation of such a list, we need your voice and your vote.

In order to create a new list, we need to put a request it in Phabricator, and add a link to reasoning/explanation of purpose, and link to community consensus. Therefore we need your vote for this now, so we can request the creation of the mail list.

Read more about this email list at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project mail list where you can support the creation of the mail list with your vote, in case you haven't done so already.

Future:

Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Weekly Summary #252[edit]

Editing restrictions bot?[edit]

Hi Rich, as you may recall I requested a bot to ease the new archiving process at WP:RESTRICT. You marked the request with Doing... on February 13 and I've not heard anything else since then. I've spent the last couple hours trying to do it manually and it is mind-numbingly tedious and I'm not even close to being done with just the arbcom restrictions, so I'm wondering if this is really going to happen or if I should keep slogging through it manually. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look at this, this evening. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
That'd be great. I actually got it most of the way done, and may finish it manually as this initial culling has required some human judgement to make a few exceptions to the rules, but I can't imagine doing this once a month in perpetuity. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your AWB edit here on Erika Grey[edit]

I noticed your edit referenced in the title above.

Just a timely update: The latest relisting is already 1 day past espiry, and you might want to read the VfD page, here: permalink, and weigh in before it's too late. Just saying. Thanks.96.59.177.243 (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for fixing my rusty editing just now, though we did conflict as i was trying to save my fixing of it too. Have a nice day Jenova20 (email) 10:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Use dmy dates and similar[edit]

Hi. I've seen you adding the template to several articles. The template's documentation page says to "Place this template near the top of articles that use the dd mmm yyyy date format". Why, then, are you adding it at the bottom? ~barakokula31 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's neat and tidy and out of the way, and doesn't annoy people. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
I don't think I've seen anyone else placing it at the bottom. Have people complained about it being in the way or annoying them previously? ~barakokula31 (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
People do regularly complain about maintenance tags at the top, and I believe that the more cruft we have at the top the harder it is for new editors to see past the wikicode to editable text. It is effectively a categorization-only template, therefore placing it at the bottom with the categories makes sense. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC).
I'm with Rich on this one, and indeed, am one of those who does put it at the bottom, along with {{use British English}}; these get placed after the navboxes but before the defaultsort & cats. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The template's documentation says that "The template is useful to the editors to quickly know which date format is to be used when adding new dates into an article", so it is not "effectively a categorization-only template". I don't want to be rude, but I feel that you should ask people if they're fine with it being placed at the bottom (and if there is consensus to do so, the documentation should be amended accordingly) before doing the opposite of what's recommended.
Also, if the documentation is to be changed (and other users, such as User:Redrose64 above, are to become involved), then I don't think a user talk page is the appropriate venue for this discussion. ~barakokula31 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Out of interest I'm running some stats, but they will take a while to cook. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC).

Normans article.[edit]

Do you have the ability to place the Normans article on protection or semi-protection? It has a history of being persistently vandalized by anonymous accounts, as its history page shows. Thanks. Esnertofidel (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't, however there are a number of talk-page stalkers who do, and may be willing to take a look. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
@Esnertofidel: I can, but I really shouldn't protect it directly because I am not familiar with that page and its perceived disputes. It seems to be quite a low level: two bad edits yesterday, one a week earlier, some a week before that. In matters like this, it's best to avoid going to specific individuals, instead you should file a request at WP:RFPP which will gain the attention of several admins simultaneously. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
That's probably to lowlevel for protection even these days. Protection was initally developed for pages that were vandalisd every few minutes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
So basically, it's not worth bothering to try and keep an article free of vandalism even when its history page is visibly riddled with constant reversions, because of... reasons. Glad to see we're all enthusiastic about making Wiki a better place. Bye. Esnertofidel (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
That's not a fair summary. The question about protection is whether the damage done outweighs the benefit. If it does, then imposing it does not make Wikipedia better, it makes it worse. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC).

April events at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg

Welcome to Women in Red's
April 2017 worldwide online editathons.
Participation is welcome in any language.

Tsuruko Haraguchi, circa 1910.PNG
Wendy Binks in Bologna H3116 C.jpg
European sub-regions (according to EuroVoc, the thesaurus of the EU).png



(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) ----Rosiestep (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.4: Mail list created![edit]

Newsletter Nr 4, 2017-03-24, for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta)
Stamboom png.svg

Participation:

This is the fourth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.

(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)

Mail list is created:

The project email list is now created and ready to use!

Please feel free to subscribe at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy

Future:

Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl.

To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Wikidata weekly summary #253[edit]

In some benign wp:CANVASSING[edit]

Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's
... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #254[edit]

An update from the Sustainability Initiative[edit]

Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative!

Hi, Rich Farmbrough! Thank you again for supporting the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. Over the past two years, more than 200 Wikipedians from all over the world have come together to push the Wikimedia movement towards greater sustainability.

What's new?

We are writing you this message because there is great news: The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has finally passed a resolution stating that the Foundation is committed to seeking ways to reduce the impact of its activities on the environment. Also, we have created a cool logo and found a nice name for the project which you can see on the right :-)

What's next?

Currently, we are working with Wikimedia Foundation staff to make sustainability a key priority for the selection of a new location for Wikimedia servers in Singapore. Also, we have presented the Wikimedia Foundation with a green energy roadmap to have all Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy by 2019.

Please help!

Let's keep this project moving forward – and there are several ways in which you can help:

  • Ask other Wikipedians to sign the project page as well – this way we can show the Wikimedia Foundation that this is an issue that the community really cares about.
  • Talk to Wikimedians you know about the importance of reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement.
  • Improve and translate the project page on Meta.

If you have any questions, you can contact us on on Meta. Again, thank you very much for your support! --Aubrey and Gnom (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #255[edit]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Competence is acquired[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Wikipedia:Competence is acquired, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is acquired and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Competence is acquired during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, April 2017[edit]

Bots Newsletter, April 2017
BAG laurier.svg

Greetings!

The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

Arbcom

Magioladitis ARBCOM case has closed. The remedies of the case include:

  • Community encouraged to review common fixes
  • Community encouraged to review policy on cosmetic edits
  • Developers encouraged to improve AWB interface
  • Bot approvals group encouraged to carefully review BRFA scope
  • Reminders/Restrictions specific to Magioladitis
BRFAs

We currently have 27 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!

Discussions

There are multiple ongoing discussions surrounding bot-related matters. In particular:

New things

Several new things are around:

Wikimania

Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know!

Thank you! edited by:Headbomb 11:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


(You can unsubscribe from future newsletters by removing your name from this list.)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ASIN[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:ASIN has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Station exits[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Station exits has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sousa (disambiguation)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Sousa (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

to move Sousa here.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Brainist (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Template class[edit]

Hi, you don't need to do this - for pages outside the main Talk: namespace, the class is automatically detected. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #256[edit]

T. Dudley Allen rename error in March 2015 (!)[edit]

While researching something else, I stumbled on an article move you did over 2 years ago here. In the rename you misspelled the architect's name, making it T. Dudely Allen. It should be T. Dudley Allen, not "Dudely".

It gets worse. There's also a T. D. Allen which is a different (set of) people who are writers, and a whole bunch of redirects including T. Dudley Allen, Truman Allen, Truman Dudley Allen, Truman D. Allen and T.D. Allen (note the lack of spaces) now point you to the writers and not the architect. Which means a bunch of infoboxes in NRHP building articles take you to the those two writers instead of T. Dudley Allen the architect. And the hatnote on the article about the two writers is a circular reference! (Heads up to @Doncram: I think you created most of these redirects).

I rarely do article moves, and therefore I can't even wrap my head around how to unravel this mess - can you and Doncram get together and fix it? Thanks! --Krelnik (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have requested a move to fix the spelling. The redirects can either be sorted afterwards, or pointed to the incorrect spelling, relying on bots to fix the resulting double redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC).
Now all done, simply awaiting the move. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC).
Hi. I see the move to T. Dudley Allen has been done, and I just edited further there. I checked all the articles on (NRHP-listed) works and confirm that their links go to the architect (i think Rich Farmbrough fixed them). All done for real. :) Thanks User:Krelnik for your good attention to detail and to Rich Farmbrough for fixing. cheers, --doncram 07:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks to you both! --Krelnik (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You say potato[edit]

Hi Rich Farmbrough. Actually, according to Google Ngram, it is "Encyclopedia" Britannica, and by a large margin. The flatlining on Encyclopædia looks suspicious, but it's not entirely flatlined, so Google Ngram does recognize the string; so not sure what to make of that.

Regular Google hits are unreliable, but can give a general sense of magnitude. "Encyclopedia Britannica" gets 654,000 Google hits, while "Encyclopædia Britannica" gets 827,000, so the two strings are in the same ballpark, such that certainly "Encyclopædia Britannica" cannot be said to clearly be the WP:COMMONNAME.

As you know WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:LEGALNAME. So since neither spelling clearly has the whip hand, plus the introduction of characters not in the normal Latin alphabet possibly isn't friendly to non-native speakers, I'm not seeing the need for a general crusade to change this. Or do you know something I don't know? Herostratus (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I was just thinking of coming here and thanking Rich for his work correcting this misspelling, so here goes, thank you Rich, it is much appreciated. Misspellings make Wikipedia look shoddy. DuncanHill (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC).
The Ngrams data is interesting, I suspect that it is an aritfact, probably of the OCR tool. Interestingly if you click the "case insensitive" box you get Search for "Encyclopædia Britannica" yielded only one result.
The Junior E B does not use the diphthong, nor do lazy journalists, nor, as you say, anyone restricted to basic Latin keyboard. We do not have an inbuilt preference for or against these graphemes, per WP:DIACRITICS, either for keyboarding or linguistic reasons.
The diphthong can be considered a nineteenth century affectation, however we generally go along with more extreme affectations than this, such as bell hooks, eBay and iPad.
Finally it is not a crusade, it is a boring slog. I would prefer we called it "that bloody book" right now. However if it were a crusade I would be at Antioch, the exercise is all but complete.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC).
Yeah OK. Well to each his own I guess. I mean I don't agree necessarily that it is "laziness", since certainly the word "encyclopedia" is not considered a misspelling (it might be considered an Americanism, or even an egregious barbarism, but that's not the same as a misspelling). Since the word is not a misspelling, IMO the case for "Encyclopædia" comes down to one of 1) it's made in Britain, and the British spell the common non "encyclopædia" or 2) it's how the company spells it.
The first is a WP:ENGVAR argument, and it could be correct (assuming the British do spell the common noun that way still, which I'm not even sure of that). But IMO ENGVAR is for article content, not about where the HQ of sources are located. And so you could end up with the article "The Americanness of Being American", peppered throughout the text with "encyclopedia", having a source named "Encyclopædia", which is the opposite of what's intended.
As to the second, yeah sometimes. We do "eBay" etc. because that's how (most) everyone else writes but. But we don't do "Macy*s" or "WAL*MART" etc, notwithstanding what's on their letterhead, because that's not how most everyone else writes it. So does (most) everyone worldwide write it ""Encyclopædia Britannica"? Or even most people? Maybe; not convinced yet.
But OK, it's not worth fighting about. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all done! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC).


Food justice[edit]

Hi!

Our Food Justice page got deleted but here's your work. Thank you for adding:

  Food and the body Disabled bodies and food According to a 2015 report by the CDC, 53 million people in the United States live with a disability. People with disabilities are more likely to be living in poverty and have reduced access to food. Disability and food justice advocates call for a both shift in public perception of disability as well as an increase in infrastructure supporting people with disabilities Disability and Food Studies scholars have discussed the way in which food becomes a site [clarification needed] in which ableism is perpetuated, whether difficulty obtaining food in grocery stores, inaccessible restaurants or discourses about "food as medicine", positing disability as something to be eliminated,. Disability scholar Kim Hall termed these discourses “alimentary ableism” critiquing the ways that they create dominant ideas about food and food justice.

Medicalization of food Food studies scholars have pointed to the biomedicalization of food as a site [clarification needed] of critique and analysis. Scholars who study the medicalization of food analyze the social and cultural forces which structure scientific and medical knowledge and how these forces have informed ideas of “food as medicine”. The power of the medical institution in the characterization of food as good or bad are traced, for instance, specifically through the development of Gerber baby food and the changing ideas for what was seen as healthy for infants and children during the 19th and 20th centuries.

While the "food as medicine" framework can improve access to "healthy" choices and remove stigma for some food related issues, scholars have found flaws this framework. Disability studies scholars have expressed concern with the narrative of good food preventing disability and the necessary tragedy which disability must play in such a discourse as well as the racist and classist undertones of "hygienic eating" and the focus of food systems on individual health rather than concern for worker safety. Additionally, scholars have critiqued the disproportionate medicalization of women’s lives (including food), the disguising of harmful socio-cultural forces as natural medical realities, and an unnecessary and excessive dependence on biomedical expertise and systems.

Genetically modified organisms Another concern for food justice is genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly how GMOs can be dangerous in the hands of big corporations. One example is wild rice. The documentary Manoomin: A Minesota Way of Life is part of a campaign against genetically engineered wild rice in the State of Minnesota. The film, aimed at state legislatures, details the cultural, spiritual, and historical significance of wild rice to the Ojibwe people of Minnesota. The threat to the rice comes from corporations who want to genetically engineer wild rice, which can then compromise the integrity of sanctity [clarification needed] of it.

Monsanto patenting of seeds has also been controversial for hurting farming. Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist, says that "Monsanto’s talk of 'technology' tries to hide its real objectives of ownership and control over seed where genetic engineering is just a means to control seed and the food system through patents and intellectual property rights." She claims Monsanto's patents on seeds are hurting farming in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EJAlly (talkcontribs) 23:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! It's not really my work though. For anyone interested the page was userfied to User:Tamsberk/Food Justice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC).

Wikidata weekly summary #257[edit]

Invitation[edit]

Stephanie-Cox-480.jpg

Thank you for your contributions to articles about women on Wikipedia. I thought I'd let you know about the women's football/soccer task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer (WOSO). If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Problems with Bryan template modifications[edit]

I've fix this one but you will need to check the rest. -- PBS (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I came here with the same concern, this one is wrong after your correction. Fram (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

But I notice that you self-corrected most of the others, so thank you. Fram (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Drugs[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/67w5nr/wikipedia_is_no_longer_cuttingedge_on_covering/ All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC).

May 2017 at Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg

Welcome to Women in Red's
May 2017 worldwide online editathons.
Participation is welcome in any language.

Adath Jeshurun Women's League costume party, Minneapolis (4419484936).jpg
Test cricket - women - 1935.jpg
Pacific Basin Human Geography Cultural Zones.jpg



(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Elias Beckingham has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg Hello, Rich Farmbrough. Elias Beckingham, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
How delightful! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

Syntax for redirects[edit]

Why are you going out of your way to change #REDIRECT to #Redirect (e.g. this diff)?

WP:Redirect#How to make a redirect shows that the convention is to use all CAPS for this keyword. We're working at cross-purposes as I often change them in the reverse direction as you. wbm1058 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It's simpler, and less magical than all caps. I like to make wikitext as simple as possible, to encourage those who are not familiar with it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC).
Please stop this task immediately and seek bot approval for it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 54, where you may provide your gracious assent. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC).
Okay I have now commented there. Please wait for approval and stop making these on your main account. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #258[edit]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Gastropod Barnstar[edit]

Guilfordiayoka.jpg The Gastropod Barnstar

For your good work on organzing templates of external links in gastropods articles, I award you this Gastropod Barnstar. Congratulations! --Snek01 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Amazing! I never knew there was one! Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC).

Would you be so kind and could you realize few more gastropod related tasks, please?

1) Add proper wikilink:

sea [[slug]] -> [[sea slug]]

This is usually in the introductory sentence of the article.

2) If there is a code like this:

[[slug|sea slug]] -> [[sea slug]]

3) Remove Category:Nudibranchia from all articles. (You can keep the sole article "nudibranch" there.) It is container category. Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_6#Category_Nudibranchia. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems straight-forward. Doing 1 now. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC).
1 and 2 -  Done. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC).
3 I have left Dexiarchia and Euctenidiacea although they are members of Nudipleura. The rest are  Done All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC).

Wonderful!

4) In articles within category gastropods and its subcategories:

land [[snail]] -> [[land snail]]

5) In articles within category gastropods and its subcategories:

freshwater [[snail]] -> [[freshwater snail]]

Thank you very much! --Snek01 (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

'tis done! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC).
Wikipedia Biology project logo.png The Gastropod Hero Barnstar

Thank you for holding the whole Wikipedia on your shoulders. --Snek01 (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Position of table of contents in List of botanists by author pages[edit]

Hi, the logic behind the position of the ToC in the "List of botanists by author" pages is that if you click on a letter (e.g. N) any ToC above the section heading (to which the link leads you) isn't visible unless you scroll up. So it's more reader-friendly to have a ToC below every linked section heading on every page. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Peter coxhead: I assume that you mean List of botanists by author abbreviation (K–L). Placing the TOC anywhere other than immediately before a section heading creates an accessibility issue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Ah, right. So would there still be a problem if the links in the ToC went to an anchor above the ToC instead of to the section heading? I can't immediately find all the discussion that led to the currently agreed design, but I remember that the problem of not seeing the ToC was considered important.
Whatever design is adopted, it should be the same for every one of the 16 pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Linking directly to section headings is perfectly fine - indeed that is precisely what the default TOC does. The problem comes when there is text between a TOC and the next heading. Screen reader users such as Graham87 (talk · contribs) simply won't hear it. More at WP:TOC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: linking directly to a section heading is not "perfectly fine" if the ToC may not be immediately below, since, as I tried to explain before, if the ToC has to be above the section heading, then when the reader jumps to the section heading, the ToC is not visible without scrolling, and the reader may not know it's there. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You can have a link back to the ToC at the top of each section. Having said that I'm not sure that these ToC's have the issue RR describes, since they are simply templates, linking mainly to other pages. I would have thought that
a) If you go to "L" the chance you want to navigate straight to "C" is pretty small.
b) As the list grows the number of letters per page will tend to one or less. This makes the ==A-G== ==H== ==I-Z== division a little odd. Dividing the page into navigable chunks, indpendent of the top-level navigation seems the way to go:
S-Sd
Se-Sh
Si-Sp
So-Sz
perhaps.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC).
You could model it like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
They are almost one per page now, so I agree that in the end there will be one per page for most letters (not Q I suspect) and the pages will need subdividing.
However, this list isn't like stations, because it gets used both ways: to look up the botanist corresponding to the abbreviation and to look up the abbreviation for the botanist. The latter may require two steps, since if a botanist's name were "James Wilson", the abbreviation could be found under "J" (e.g. "J.Wilson") or under "W" (e.g. "Wils." or "Wilson"). So easy jumping around is useful. There were objections when what was originally one page was divided up because editors were previously able to search for a surname. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #259[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #260[edit]

Bot-like editing[edit]

Hello. You recently made 70 edits within 60 seconds. I don't know how that is possible in a semi-automated method but either way it is MEATBOT. In the interests of accountability and to avoid flooding watchlists I ask that you gain bot approval for large-scale tasks like this. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There are many ways of doing this without it being meatbot, including having 70 tabs open. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Rich Farmbrough, for replacing the rcat templates. I was wondering if you could mark these edits as minor, so I can filter them out of my watchlist, which they have totally overwhelmed? Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Just came here to request the same. Thanks for your edits! I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 01:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll see if I can do this tonight. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC).
It's done. With a little luck Helpful Pixie Bot will finish the task. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC).

DYK for Elias Beckingham[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 21 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elias Beckingham, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 13th-century English royal justice Elias Beckingham was described as being one of only two honest judges in the kingdom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elias Beckingham. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Elias Beckingham), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing direct quote[edit]

In this edit [1], you modified text in a direct quote to remove the word "for" - I am sure you're aware of the importance of not modifiying direct quotes. You also left behind mangled phrases such as Those at the meeting described "open source" as a "replacement label" free software. This seems to be related to the bot-like editing mentioned in a higher section of this talk page. It is not possible to simply replace "for free" with "free" without manually reviewing every change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, in this edit [2] you changed the title of a reference which included "for free", making the title in the citation inaccurate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)