User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2015 October

Previous · Index · Next

Jump-to links
2024   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2023   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2022   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2021   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2020   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2019   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2018   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2017   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2016   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2015   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2014   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2013   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2012   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2011   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2010   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2009   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2008   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2007   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2006   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2005   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·
2004                                                           Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec ·

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you, Rich, for cleaning up the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Metrics‎ lists, which is important to our project. Your contributions are appreciated. Rosiestep (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nicholas Bowen 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/Nicholas Bowen until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. isfutile:P (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC).)[reply]
User:Primefac doesn't like them. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, and it'd be nice if you didn't put words in my mouth. I am simply removing completely useless refs like http://www.findmypast.co.uk/birth-indexes-search-start.action , which is a) a dead link, and b) when it was live, only went to the generic search page. When is referencing a Search ever RS? I am leaving well alone any reference to an actual document. So please, Philafrenzy, chill out. Primefac (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad we cleared that up!

Quick question, do you remove links like "http://www.findmypast.co.uk/birth-indexes-search-start.action=go&params=Bloggs%20Fred" - because on a lot of web sites (and this is not necessarily a good thing) that might well be the (an) url for an actual document.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

At this particular moment I am only removing links that are clearly to the generic search page with no extra information attached to them. Since I do not feel like paying for a subscription, I am leaving anything that may be ambiguous alone for now. Primefac (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about this, this, and this? All to specific pages in their site. (there are another 5 or 6) It doesn't matter, incidentally, that they are now dead. You can tag them for that if necessary. We need to retain the source of the information. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)At that particular time I was following the guidelines of WP:FMP and removing bare URLs. Even the ones using the naming parameter just used the generic "England Births XXXX-YYYY" title, so it's not much better than a bare URL.Primefac (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a list could be created and a mini-project to correct these URLs instituted - maybe under the auspices of WikiLibrary? Presumably they were added in good faith, so there should be something there to support the claim - if not another reference should be looked for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Melty. Since you had some involvement with the Melty redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mabalu (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

correct ur page move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.82 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mv rqstd. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe time for this to be re-created. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, but I have a problem with what you did here. I see the you moved Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1369 Coffeehouse to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1369 Coffeehouse (2nd nomination) and then requested an admin move of Wikipedia:Aticles for deletion/1369 Coffeehouse to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1369 Coffeehouse. Don't you think this would mis-direct links? All links that were supposed to point to one nomination are now pointing to another nominaion. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 30 transcludes the wrong page. I'll go ahead and request a repair of thi mess. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only link there. And these pages get almost zero views, see stats.grok.se. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

And you broke it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, do you know where the log of nonconstructive edits for STiki users is? I have STiki and I can't find it anywhere. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 17:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the STiki database lives off on some third party server at a university. It may have moved since I used it. You can find the whitelist of users on your own computer, but the main db is probably too large to distribute, and too difficult to synchronise. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, but I thought you picked edits out of a big list. Can you help me with this? --Rubbish computer 18:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean "how do you see the list on STiki", I am not allowed to use STiki per ArbCom, therefore I don't have ability to run the software up and remind myself of the user interface. I only knew about the whitelist because it got thrown up at on recent disk-search. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed you created Category:Kazak wrestlers but Category:Kazakhstani sport wrestlers, Category:Kazakhstani wrestlers and Category:Kazakhstani martial artists. The organisation is a mess bu I thought you should know.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:

• Category:Kazak wrestlers redirects to Category:Kazakhstani sport wrestlers
• Category:Kazakhstani sport wrestlers is the canonical category
• Category:Kazakhstani wrestlers redirects to Category:Kazakhstani sport wrestlers
• Category:Kazakhstani martial artists is a parent category

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Moved to WPT:FMP All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I made a article called Draft:Samuel Fairgood and it is now in draft into the article is ready. I just did some changes to it and was wondering can you take a look at it to see if I can move the article to the main site. Thank you. Kingsamhippy (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that there is no indication that this person meets the requirements for a Wikipedia article. You (or someone else) will need to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See WP:GNG for what this means in detail.

This would help fix the second issues - the lack of references in the article.

The third issue is the non-neutral language. "nowadays the music we hear on the radio and media is overrated with negativity and nonsense" is not something we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice, it needs a source - who says that?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Rich. Two things.

1. I did a simple count on the three parts of the OFAC SDN list, iterating over the program acronyms using 'grep -Fc', and expanded the table on the Wikipedia page accordingly. It turns out that the "program acronyms" seem to correspond to specific sanctions authorizations rather than sanctions programs, so there are multiple results for each program (look at Iran!). I kept everything down to simple counting, as you suggested that doing so would not run afoul of OR restrictions.
2. Pretty please, in the future, when replying to me on a talk page, use something like the {{reply to}} template, so that I get the message promptly, if at all.

Have a look at the table. Some of the results surprised me. For example, I found no one on sanctions for blood-diamonds. Regards, —Boruch Baum (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boruch Baum good move, it avoids the complexities. The article comments on the diamonds. I am a little "old-school" - I generally expect people to check back, either using their memory or watchlist. But I'll make an exception. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

BTW I emailed you the script I used. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Rich. Your thoughts are welcome at WT:RFA#Two proposed RfCs on the viewdeleted userright. (P.S. This isn't canvassing, since you're one of the people in the target demographic ... you'll see what I mean.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pedro López (serial killer) page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they accede to your request. I think enough time has passed. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One can never tell. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, can I encourage you to retract/heavily amend this[1], in its present form it probably doesn't help the discussion, or the overall case being put. —Sladen (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![2] —Sladen (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Could this perhaps be worded more clearly? "6. It would be nice to be able to use … Hotcat" and then "Hotcat: really I would doubt that I would use it more than …".[3] It is perhaps a confusing juxtaposition in its present form. —Sladen (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. The point I was trying to make is that the restriction hamstrings me at every turn. It not only means that I can't run bots, can't do assisted editing of the type that AWB, Huggle and Stiki enable, it denies me the minor tools and gadgets - and nominally cut and paste, search and replace. I say nominally, but I was blocked for a year for possibly using search and replace - maybe just search I can't really remember.* User:Worm That Turned vouchsafed an opinion on where the line might be drawn - but made it clear - quite rightly, that it was merely an opinion. Any attempt to negotiate or gain clarity is met with accusations of "pushing the envelope".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• I might even have been using "Highlight all" on Firefox! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  

Thank you![4] The positive spin is to state that the restrictions and year-block have allowed exploring other ways of contributing to Wiki*.* (without automation), that these have allowed the (re)growing of relationships with other editors, and this period of reflection was used to work on the points raised during the Arbitration processes. The key phrase in the request, for me, is "one [FoF] suggested that I was "not responsive". … since that date I have been responsive." because it shows recognition+acceptance+addressing+changing. —Sladen (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC) PS. try not to enumerate ways that [5] could have been done—it can be perceived as petty, evasive, and detracting from the wider story about your learning and changing from the experience, which is what people really want to hear about and which will determine your success.[reply]

Well of course, that edit is hardly relevant unless it is brought up as "recalcitrance" - but yes the claim is fairly clear, and I thought compelling. I haven't done what was claimed in the 3 1/2 years since and have no intention of so doing. You're right I should have drawn attention to my content work, perhaps its a bit late for that now.

On the positive side Corcelles has suggested a loosening that would be valuable.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The good way to bring notice to someone's (e.g. an arbcom clerk's) typo is to fix it and leave them a note on their personal talk page. The bad way is to make a fuss on a widely watched noticeboard. Please do more of the former and less of the latter. NE Ent 02:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to change it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, you were mentioned, along with the rest of the Top 10 Wikipedians by edit count, in this news piece: http://priceonomics.com/the-most-prolific-editor-on-wikipedia/. Thanks, ––Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

No problem. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 09:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a hell of a lot of updating to do here, 3/4 of the stuff on here is totally wrong!! How do you people get away with allowing Courtney Love write most of this stuff via fake names. It's so obvious, please Fix this bullshit now!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4300:FF40:148A:861D:F8FD:B6CA (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could be a little more specific? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

done, I think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:YK from Time Will Tell.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another RM started and has been ongoing; I invite you to improve consensus. --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 00:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alice Coomaraswamy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the occultist Aleister Crowley, Alice Coomaraswamy became pregnant using "sex magic"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice Coomaraswamy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now exists - looks like you have info to add to it, thank goodness. He also wrote science fiction, and lots of steamy romance novels ... but documenting everything is a pain and I did not easily find some of what you found. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I knew he deserved an article. I have moved my resources to the article or the talk page. Feel free to use as you see fit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for your supporting the lifting/easing of my restriction. :) GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]