User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2006Jun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 11:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Erik Satie
Please discontinue use of AWB for disturbing edits, like you did on the Erik Satie article [1] - What was your *reason* - if any - to change subtitle levels on that page? --Francis Schonken 08:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Standard appendices are generally level 2, and in the order "See also", "References", "Bibliography" and "External links" if present. I'm not sure what you mean by "disturbing". Rich Farmbrough 00:19 25 April 2006 (UTC).
- Sorry, I'm not satisfied with that answer.
- Seems like you either don't know the difference between "generally" and "always", or didn't check the net effect of your change neither before nor after saving.
- Further, could you give me a guideline/policy reference indicating the validity of the "rule" you come up with here?
- And with "disturbing", I mean: "disturbing". Again, from the fact that you're at loss what I mean with disturbing, it's quite clear you didn't check your edit nor before nor after saving.
- Please answer on my talk page, I generally don't go around checking other people's talk pages. --Francis Schonken 07:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Date proposal
Hello Rich,
I'm not sure if you're still interested in the Dates section of the Manual of Style, but I noticed you'd commented in previous discussions. I have made a proposal to completely rewrite this section, with the hope that people from both sides of the debate can agree on a text. Please do come along and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) if you're interested. I would like as many people as possible to comment, so that we can truly say we've reached a consensus.
Thanks,
Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 9/11 Wiki
On the main page of the 9/11 Wiki, there is a link to sep11:Wikipedia, a page only created since the main page link could not be changed without sysop privledges. Could you update the link to go to Wikipedia's Main Page (or similar) and delete sep11:Wikipedia? Also, you might want to look at the "speedy delete" page if you have time. Thanks! Timrem 02:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus for Portal:Law
Greetings, Rich. I've picked Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus for theLaw portal's next "selected case". I saw that you did some editing on it, and was wondering if you would give it a run-through to determine if anything should be changed. In particular, the case should have a citation if possible, and should note legal appeals of the conviction, if any. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eh?
Hi, you might watch your AWB edits a little more closely. This, for example, contains this gem:
- There were 15.8% of families and 19.2% of the population living below the poverty line, including 12.5% of under eighteens and 35.7% of those over 64.
That is pretty poor English by any standards. Of course the Rambot census jargon left lots of room for improvement, but this is not. older ≠ wiser 17:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!
Hi Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2006Jun, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!
If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Glen TC (Stollery) 22:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response also posted on VandalProof disscussion pages
Give log into IE, and give it a shot, let me know the results and I will post that up on the welcome page, thanks.Eagle (talk) (desk) 23:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- If this does not work I will need infomation on your settings for wikipedia. Let me know
- Ok, this has been seen before, try this solution, if it does not work, reply on the disscussion page... ditto if it works I want to know both ways thanks. (IE Script Warning help, click hereEagle (talk) (desk) 23:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Lol... yes you absolutly NEED popups,
[edit] Arlington County, Virginia
Hey Rich, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated Arlington County, Virginia as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week. The article is in need of much help and with a little group effort, it could be brought to Featured Article status! I brought this to your attention as I have seen you have contributed to the article in the recent past. Please cast your vote with your signature at the US Collaboration of the Week page under Arlington County, Virginia. --Caponer 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] test on vandal proof
Sounds good, I am having my own problems as well with vandal proof, have a look on my talk pageEagle talk 09:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you
[edit] Removed by scanning subsystem
I haven't seen it at all. Can you point out which one you were talking about. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- That is very strange. Have you contacted the schools ISP? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you'd commented on an anon's page, who seems to be running software to prevent the posting of expletives. Quite likey it is a school. If this becomes widespread it will take some combatting. Have you seen it elsewhere? Rich Farmbrough 16:01 8 May 2006 (UTC).
- Have a butchers at this diff. I'm scanning the most recent database dump to see if there's more - just found one in Glen Matlock. Rich Farmbrough 16:08 8 May 2006 (UTC).
-
- Same IP. Only one I could find. Rich Farmbrough 16:18 8 May 2006 (UTC).
- P.S. time to archive your talk page! Rich Farmbrough 16:08 8 May 2006 (UTC).
-
[edit] Date delinking
I am hopeful that Ambi can be encouraged to fully accept Quadell's remedy. Please look at my talk page. Thanks. bobblewik 19:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "passed away -> died using AWB".....
You're leaving a trail of morbidly amusing edit summaries behind you: at first glance I thought you were saying that these individuals had died using AWB. Now that's dedication to Wikipedia! Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] -{{inuse}}
"The Lotus Case and Laser resurfacing have been "in use" since you created them..."
- Fixed.
Folajimi 17:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Death of Adolf Hitler
In the article Death of Adolf Hitler you modified the form "When she passed away on October 31" to "Immediately before she died". This is not about Kamato Hongo or her death. Use of her persona in connection with Adolf Hitler calls for very carefull choise of words. I have restored the original form. -- Petri Krohn 03:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- The original said that she was alive when she was dead. I thought that was a bad idea...Rich Farmbrough 18:13 13 May 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Date linking
Can you not delink dates such as December 2004? There has been no discussion about removing these. Rebecca 04:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Areas: mi² or square miles?
Hello. I'm not sure if I have anything to add to the argument that hasn't already been said more eloquently. My personal opinion is that there isn't anything to be gained, and much to be lost, by using abbreviations that only appear once or twice in an article. Futhermore, I know that mi is an approved abbreviation for mile in the US, but most UK readers will need it spelling out, as mi is not common here (eg it does not appear in the 2000-page Chambers Dictionary, unlike m). Essentially though, I agree with the first dozen lines of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units. Mr Stephen 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merkey
Please don't post the amount of the settlement, as it will subject you to suit personally from Mr. Merkey. Bad idea.--BradPatrick 19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DJ Pierre
Has an out-of-order category in the Cite-sources template - hence Pearle spots it. This is really symptomatic of self-ref cleanup tags which, perhaps, like stubs should not be at the top? Rich Farmbrough 13:51 11 May 2006 (UTC).
- The problem was that someone inappropriately used subst: for {{unreferenced}}, which inserted a Category: link at the top of the page, where it does not belong. It is common practice for these templates to be at the top of the page, where they are most visible. I replaced the result of the subst: with the template itself. -- Beland 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed event policy for Wikicalendar
I recently posted some ideas about developing criteria for what should and should not be listed on Wikicalendar events at the Wikicalendar's talk page. Since you're actively involved in this project, I thought I'd let you know so that you can comment or add more suggestions. Thanks :). Fabricationary 23:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] De-linking dates
Hi, I was just wondering why your bot de-linked the year-dates on Levi Yitzhak Bender article? Especially on his birth years? Thanks, Yoninah 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, since it is notable in that he had more that one birth year
, I have re-linked them. In general dates are only linked when the links are useful WP:MOSNUM (the exception being if month and day of month are included when they respond to user preferences, e.g. 3 May). Historically every date was linked, which means there are many unnecessary links (the "sea of blue"), and, more importantly, new editors are copying this style. On a tangential point, a huge battle blew up several months ago when an editor proposed using a bot to de-link dates - so let me be clear this is not a bot. I have a bot account User:SmackBot ehich does useful clean up tasks. Rich Farmbrough 08:04 15 May 2006 (UTC).
-
- Where did you get the idea he has more than one birth year? I'm the only one who's worked on this article, and there's no talk page saying otherwise. These are the dates provided by my published source, Breslov Research Institute.
- In future articles, are you suggesting that if I don't know the month and day as well as year of birth/death, I shouldn't link the years? Thank you, Yoninah 18:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User_talk:193.112.229.150
Okay. Thanks for sorting that out! :) -- Tangotango 08:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Passed away"
Thanks for your work in ridding Wikipedia of that irritating euphemism. AnnH ♫ 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changing image name
This is just to let you know that you should NOT change image spelling to any images, even if the spelling is incorrect. ie Changing an image that has "middle earth" to its proper "Middle-earth" Wikipedia will assume that it is a diffrent image and (assuming there is no image of that name) it won't show an image at all. Although it is appropriate to correct the spelling if it is in the image's captioning (the description below it).--Ted87 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- No I don't have it. Sorry. Are you a Tolkien/Middle-earth fan? If you are then you may be intrested in joining Wikiproject Middle-earth.
[edit] Amon Hen 171
Hi there. I saw your question about this on Ted's talk page. I have this issue of Amon Hen which has the article Tolkien and Beowulf by Michael Kennedy. What exactly do you want to check about it? Carcharoth 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Middle-earth spelling changes
Hi again. I also saw the little discussion about changes to the spellings of Middle-earth. I saw the edits where you did this in the Tolkien article, but then reverted yourself. Was this because the "incorrect" spellings you picked up with AWB were actually incorrect spellings in book and essay titles that should be left as they are? Looking a bit more closely, I spot a certain Tolkien and Beowulf essay there! So I think I know why you wanted Amon Hen 171! I can confirm that on both the contents page and in the title, Middle-earth is spelt with a small 'e'. So I've taken the liberty of making that correction. Carcharoth 21:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Though actually, I see that the webpage on which this article was republished has it spelt as "Middle-Earth", so please revert me if you think it should be left with an "E". Carcharoth 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- And the Legendarium one is "e" and the Myth and Modernity one is "E" - from book covers on Amazon. The New York Times article, from Google searches (as NYT requires log-in) is "E". The Michael Martinez article is "E". And rummaging around various reliable websites leads me to think that the Caedmon audio cassette is "E" with no hyphen! So the only one I am unsure about is the Kennedy article - the original publication (Amon Hen) is "e", but the online version (and more importantly the more accessible version), is "E". Incidentially, should the reference say Amon Hen, when in fact it links to an online republication of the article? Carcharoth 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] One Wonderful Day (Desperate Housewives episode) Quotes
Hi Rich. I just wanted to let you know that Dr. Craig did say "passed away" when informing Bree of Rex's death. I would know that since I have it on DVD. I changed it back to "passed away". If you have any comments, feel free to drop me a message or on the talk page. Cheater1908 18:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing that. Rich Farmbrough 11:26 21 May 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Minor barnstar
This is for excellence in minor edits - well done...!
 |
The Minor Barnstar | |
| For all those relentless minor edits! Keep up the good work Tyrenius 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC) |
Tyrenius 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PM
[2] Okay, 5 p.m. is fine. But not one minute later. :-p Femto 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nice to know Femto keeps an eye on the pico. Rich Farmbrough 13:34 23 May 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Changes to Hordville, Nebraska
Hi, Rich, and thanks for your improvements to Hordville, Nebraska. I have just a couple of comments that might help you if you decide to continue making similar improvements to other city articles.
First, I noticed you changed the link [[square kilometer|km²]] to [[km²]]. To avoid the redirect, perhaps this should be changed to [[square kilometre|km²]] (note the -re spelling).
I also see that you improved the following pair of sentences:
- 11.2% of the population and 10.9% of families were below the poverty line. 9.8% of those under the age of 18 and 0.0% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.
Your revision was as follows, which is much better:
- There were 10.9% of families and 11.2% of the population living below the poverty line, including 9.8% of under eighteens and none of those over 64.
I would suggest the wording below:
- About 10.9% of families and 11.2% of the population were below the poverty line, including 9.8% of those under the age of 18 and none of those 65 and older.
To me, "under eighteens" sounds very clumsy; the original "those under the age of 18" sounds much better. I think you added "there were" to the beginning of the sentence to avoid starting it with a figure, but I don't like how that sounds. I tried to come up with a better way of wording that, and the best I could come up with is to use the word "about". After all, it appears that the Census Bureau does a little fiddling to come up with those numbers. There were 48 families in Hordville as of the 2000 Census. If five families lived under the poverty line, that would be 10.4% of families; if six lived in poverty, that would be 12.5%. So the 10.9% figure must be an estimate based on some statistical analysis, in which case "about" is appropriate. The same goes for the 11.2% figure.
Let me know what you think. —Bkell (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your constructive comments. On the first point, square kilometre was a redirect until earlier today, when I recreated it for the second time! So it's a considered decision to go for km², but admittedly a little arbitrary. On your second point, this is perhaps the most complicated part of the process, because the original wording of the poverty section was manifestly wrong, therefore a lot of manual changes occurred. I do take your point, and am not completely happy with any solution I've seen for wording this part, but I will review what I do in light of your comments. Because the changes are now fairly complex, (and I've done about 3,500 articles already) I may also finish the exercise as is, or very close, and come back with improved wording as a third pass. (The first pass was putting the census results in the past tense.) Rich Farmbrough 21:16 25 May 2006 (UTC).
-
- P.S. I've now incorporated your suggestions for the poverty sentence. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough 11:48 26 May 2006 (UTC).
-
[edit] edit summary
Can you remove the extra "using AWB" from smackbots edit summary, it currently says it twice. thanks Martin 15:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well spotted. Rich Farmbrough 15:35 28 May 2006 (UTC).
[edit] 0.00% in census data
I noticed your bot's edit to Muenster, Texas and thought I'd let you know that I rather think that the 0.00 % figures in census data for a town is necessary for major races. It 1) establishes that the race makes up less than 0.005% of the population (0.00 is not the same as zero) and 2) reaffirms for the reader that the US Census isn't lumping that race under "other races". — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- On your first point, I had thought of that, for towns with a population of less tan 20,000 even one person should show up as .005% rounded up to .01%. I will not substitute 0.00% for towns with a substantially greater population, (although I suspect there will be few if any). Your second point is interesting, "other races" is fairly well explained in the article Race (United States Census) which is extensively linked to from every article. Perhaps putting "other races" in quotes would emphasise the meaning. See Muenster, Texas, let me know what you think. Rich Farmbrough 15:09 29 May 2006 (UTC).
- P.S. The largest town I found with a 0.00% was New Richmond, Ohio, with a pop of just over 2000. Rich Farmbrough 13:48 30 May 2006 (UTC).
[edit] "Georgia" is at Georgia (U.S. state)
Please try to link the article rather than the dab page [3]. -- User:Docu
- Strange, I was quite pleased that I was linking to the U.S. State page... Thanks for telling me. Rich Farmbrough 22:15 5 May 2006 (UTC).
-
- Good idea BTW. I always wondered why the state wasn't linked. -- User:Docu
Around or before 07:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 8th.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 19 | 8 May 2006 | |
|
|
||
| New worldwide rankings show Wikipedia strength outside US | Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages |
| News and Notes: Milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report On Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
- Before 08:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 15th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 20 | 15 May 2006 | |
|
|
||
| Publicity surrounds Chinese site reusing Wikipedia content | German chapter prevails in Tron appeal |
| Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages | News and Notes: Time 100 Gala, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the News | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report On Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
- Before 08:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 29th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 22 | 29 May 2006 | |
|
|
||
| Semi-protection tweaks prompt debate over ideals | Wikipedia administrator investigated after on-wiki dispute |
| Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages | News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the News | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report On Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
- Before 08:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 22nd.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 21 | 22 May 2006 | |
|
|
||
| Project statistics updated, except for Wikipedia | Deletion of metadata icons debated |
| Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages | News and Notes: Wikimedia chapters report, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the News | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report On Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
- About 08:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scott Shields
Why is the MyDD article at this article, which I found when I referenced Shields in an edit to the Sago Mine disaster article? Shields is now the director of internet communications for the re-election campaign (well actually he was appointed--so maybe it's an election campaign) of Senator Bob Martinez (D-NJ). I'd be glad to update the article to actually match the title, if that won't mess things up.--Beth Wellington 18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- No idea, it could do with some content. Rich Farmbrough 18:53 3 June 2006 (UTC).
- OK, I also left a note for the last person to edit the article. I'll see what he suggests. Cheers,--Beth Wellington 19:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seeking your help with units and images
My unit formatting script: User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js sometimes changes image names. For example this edit. Do you have any suggestions as to a change that I could make to stop that? bobblewik 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have thought about this problem before, and not come up with a fix. But I now think maybe I can. I'll mull it over over night. Rich Farmbrough 22:26 4 June 2006 (UTC).
- Just thought I'd let you know I have written a script to solve these replacement problems, it's under preliminary testing. Rich Farmbrough 07:23 9 June 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Signpost updated for June 5th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 23 | 5 June 2006 | |
|
|
||
| New revision-hiding feature added | Paper profiles Wales, slams Wikipedia business coverage |
| Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages | New external tools |
| News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones | Wikipedia in the News |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News |
| The Report On Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
- About 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Qohelet "The Prophet"?
Considering that Ecclesiastes belongs to the Writings, rather than to the Prophets would you mind stating your justification for adding the "The Prophet" to the title Qohelet?
I think that reading Ecclesiastes#"Qohelet" and "Ecclesiastes" would clarify the question.
--Ziusudra 14:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing my attention, it should have been "The Preacher". This is an alternative name from King James Version. Reagrds, Rich Farmbrough 15:05 5 June 2006 (UTC).
- That translation is already discussed in the next section in the same article, as I mentioned. No point in adding it to the first line (makes it KJV-centric). I would have let sleeping dogs lie. Cheers, Ziusudra 15:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Miscellania
I notice you have been editing trivia to miscellania on a number of TV episode pages. Isn't it spelled miscellanea? Why do you prefer this term to trivia? If you wouldn't mind could you please post any reply on my talk page as it looks a lot less busy than yours and will be easier for me to spot. --Opark 77 12:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Bother! You're correct, now I have to change them all. I prefer miscellanea to trivia because trivia is stuff that's not worth bothering with, and hence has no place in an encyclopedia. Rich Farmbrough 13:04 6 June 2006 (UTC).
- Rich perhaps you should check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivia regarding the definition of trivia. Dannycarlton 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Matthew links
I noticed you are using AWB to wikilink to verses in Matthew. However, most (if not all) of the verses you are linking to are simply redirects. I think the more appropriate course of action to take would be to use template:bibleverse instead. What do you think?--Andrew c 17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of Bibleverse, Bibleref, niv, wikisource, and one or two others. The slight problem is that none of these are supported on standalone copies of WP or paper copies, nor can we rely on them to always be there. I am also aware of the heateed discussions about bible verse articles. I also think a user is entitled to expect the text (a text) of a bible verse, plus some information about it if they look it up on WP. I am planning on writing a modest proposal, in the next few weeks, to try to solve some of these problems. This exercise is a warm up for that, as much as anything. Incidentally I have just read the article New Testament apocrypha, and am amazed at how much more there is to know about the early church. Rich Farmbrough 17:41 6 June 2006 (UTC).
note {{tl:Sourcetext}}
- I am aware of Bibleverse, Bibleref, niv, wikisource, and one or two others. -- Bibleref has been deprecated. The wikisource template does not serve the same purpose as the other templates. Having multiple templates with similar function is stupid, I will admit, but seeing as how bibleref is being removed, a single, standard template is probably on the horizon.
- The slight problem is that none of these are supported on standalone copies of WP or paper copies. Well, WP:NOT.
- nor can we rely on them to always be there that is why we use templates. We can easily change what site the template links two, as opposed to using a direct external link.
- This exercise is a warm up for that, as much as anything. Well then, I think you are going about this the wrong way. Make your proposal first, before making bold preemptive changes.
- I also think a user is entitled to expect the text (a text) of a bible verse, plus some information about it if they look it up on WP. Once again, WP:NOT. We are not a primary source, or a collection of source material (that's Wikisource). We are not a bible commentary (that's wikibook). Once again, if you knew about the heated discussions about bible verse articles, then why are you circumventing the community?
In summary, I feel that if an article is already using one of the templates, and you add in links to the redirected bible verses, it gets confusing. If users are used to clicking on a link and being taken to biblegateway, then they click on your new links and get taken to the main gospel article, it can get very confusing.
This just in, I just looked at your edit history and noticed you creating over 500 blank redirect pages for the verses of Matthew. What in the world are you thinking???? --Andrew c 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prayer
Could you take a look at Prayer. A user constantly is adding a useless external link. I've done my three reverts for the day. It also seems like he's created additional usernames to back up his statements. Thanks. -- Jeff3000 20:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like he's got the message. Rich Farmbrough 21:15 6 June 2006 (UTC).
- No I'm waiting for someone to explain why in the world the link isn't allowed. Dannycarlton 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for voting on my RfA
 |
Thanks so much for voting!
Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your constructive criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future. |
Mahogany
- Before 08:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ehren Watada
I you haven't already weighed in, you may want to take a look at [4]. I'd be intersted in your opinion on th eproposed AfD. Cheers, Beth --Beth Wellington 05:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia -> Miscellanea
I am curious as to why you are mass-changing instances of "Trivia" to "Micellanea". Is this some new guideline on Wikipedia, or is this just your own project? Just wondering so I can be "in the know". Thanks. RattleMan 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just a thing I'm doing. However there have been some discssions at Wikipedia:Trivia. Rich Farmbrough 14:08 8 June 2006 (UTC).
- Yes, I'd like to know as well. Everyone knows what "Trivia" means but "Miscellanea" just sounds... odd. Very odd. The word is not nearly as friendly. If this is a new Wikipedia guideline, I'd like to know how I could contribute to changing it back. Esn 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Presumably you're referring to The Kid Brother? I replied to RattleMan on his talk page. The point is that "Trivia" is information which is not really of use or interest. Ideally information that is of interest should be in the article body, information that is not should not be in the article at all. Nonetheless miscellaneous useful information may need a section of it's own - calling that section "Trivia" invites the addition of facts such as "Harold Lloyd took more cream in his coffee making this film, than in the two previous films put together." You may well find a better name than I have used, please change it and let me know. See also Wikipedia:Trivia. Rich Farmbrough 09:28 9 June 2006 (GMT).
[edit] SmackBot edit to Forsyth County, North Carolina
Hey, would you mind redoing the SmackBot cleanup on Forsyth County, North Carolina? I reverted the edit because it was on top of some vandalism. Wmahan. 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Smackbot & External links
It'd be far more productive to remove bogus external links (per WP:EL) than switch between "External link"/External links". From the edit summary it seems like this bot is run under user supervision - so you could do it?
Getting rid of crap links has value, but stray plurals? Thanks/wangi 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, the replacement is automatic. I compile a list of articles with more than one link in the external links section by analysing a databse dump, and run the search and replace on those articles. I think it looks bad to say "External link" and have several.Rich Farmbrough 08:48 10 June 2006 (GMT).
[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion
Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spacing
Hi Richard!
Thanks for the helpful info. I only just found it on th discussion page. I'll try to work with that in the future.
All the best!
--Amandajm 01:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lists of Bible verses
Hi, I noticed that you created a number of articles like List of chapters and verses in the Book of Job that consist entirely of redlinks. Do you have a useful purpose in mind for these articles? Since these individual verse articles don't now exist for the most part, the lists aren't really doing anything now ... and even once they do exist, categories or navigation templates would work just as well, IMO. A couple of them have been brought up on AFD ... and, given time, the whole lot will probably be deleted unless there is some reason for their existence. As a reminder, if you should decide that they are no longer useful, you can tag them with {{db-author}} to request that an administrator delete them. BigDT 12:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok ... there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Job ... you may want to mention your purpose there. Userfying them is probably a very good idea, though, as it would save the headache of arguing over what to do with them in the interim. BigDT 12:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for clearing up the Smackbot question I had and for all you and the bot do. Ruhrfisch 13:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what your proposed Smackbot code is, but see:
Regards. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 12th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 24 | 12 June 2006 | |
|
|
||
| From the editor: RSS returns | |
| English Wikipedia reaches 1,000 Featured Articles | Administrator desysopped after sockpuppeting incident |
| Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages | News and Notes: Wikimedia board resolutions, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the News | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report On Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pedro Lopez
Do you know what happened to the Pedro Lopez page? You did a lot of work on it, but it seems its been recently removed for copyvio or some such.--Cúchullain t/c 18:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thansk for letting me know. I hope it is now fixed. Rich Farmbrough 22:35 12 June 2006 (GMT).
- It's been marked for copyvio again, but at least this time the editor explained what parts exactly are problematic.--Cúchullain t/c 17:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Looking through the history it seems the material in question was actually added by EliZZZa, who runs the site it originally came from. I doubt this new site has the copyright to it.--Cúchullain t/c 01:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's been marked for copyvio again, but at least this time the editor explained what parts exactly are problematic.--Cúchullain t/c 17:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Council elections in England - wikify dates
Hi Rich. Thanks for the offer to look at wikifying a large no. of dates on various pages. (Ref: User_talk:A_bit_iffy#Category:Council_elections_in_England_-_wikify_dates)
You asked me to put a list of the articles concerned here. However, as it would take me quite a while to produce such a list, and as all the articles have similar categorisation and naming, I'm wondering whether you could automate that part as well.
All the articles concerned are in subcategories of Category:Council elections in England, and all of the article names end " local elections".
Notes: It's possible some of the articles might happen not to have by-elections listed (because there haven't been any in recent history). Also, a small number of articles have had their "dd/mm/yyyy" dates wikified (usually by me).
Anyway, I hope you can help on this. If you want me to produce a list of the articles concerned, let me know. Cheers, --A bit iffy 11:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- That saved days - excellent stuff, Rich! Cheers, --A bit iffy 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some odd formats
I came across a lot of school articles with odd date formats. See Bear Creek Elementary School and its ilk. Just thought you might be interested. bobblewik 18:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- You may want to let him know. It seems quite a few of the BC school articles you're in the process of fixing were authored by one person. --Stephane Charette 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal message from AOL user impersonating Jeff
- —The preceding comment was added by 205.188.117.65 (talk • contribs) .
-
- The above comment was not by me, someone is impersonating me. The IP is from the US, and I don't live in the US. -- Jeff3000 01:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] wikifying dates
Hi Rich, I noticed you had wikified dates and years on the article Stephen Harper. I believe it is policy only to wikify the first mention of a particular date or year in an article, ie only the first 1995 for instance. Thanks, Kalsermar 15:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is indeed a guideline to link only the first occurrence of a link, except where style dictates otherwise. However dates that include the month and day number will format differently according to user preferences, and hence should almost always be linked thus 1 May 1999 (WP:DATES) - bare months, years, days of the week, seasons or centuries should almost never be linked. Rich Farmbrough 15:43 14 June 2006 (GMT).
[edit] Establishments by year
Many thanks for sorting out all the pages using AWB (must find out more) - that's saved me hours of work. By the way, way did you let me know that there is no year zero? I'm in the know about that - has a year cat been created for year zero? Greenshed 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] World Cup groups
There is a discussion going on about it. So please don't delete it till there is either consensus or no consensus. Kingjeff 22:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you respect me and everyone else who is willing to discuss the proposed deletion? That's all I'm asking for. But please wait for consensus. Kingjeff 22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] are you talking to me?
Hi, I received your message about FIFA 2006. You said:
These artices could do with a Nav-Box in my opinion. I'm to my bed, any chance you might whip one up? Rich Farmbrough 23:26 15 June 2006 (GMT).
Are you talking to me? I don't understand. --Neo-Jay 23:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Many thanks. I have added this template to the rest of the group articles.--Neo-Jay 14:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bot account
Have you ever considered getting a bot account for some of your massive automated edits?--Andrew c 01:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I have one (see my FAQ). However every extension of purpose needs to be approved, which means for relatively small tasks (especially one offs) of only a few hundred edits it's quicker to do them manually, secondly my bot account does not have a bot-flag, because there is currently no process on en: for getting one, and thirdly any edit where there is a significant possibility of a human (or other) mistake needs to be done by an non-bot-flagged account, so that it does show up on recent changes etc., this includes manual test samples of big bot runs. Rich Farmbrough 12:17 16 June 2006 (GMT).
- Well two things come to mind:
- Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.
- Don't do anything controversial with it.
- I think the first rule needs no explanation. (Your "estcattemp with estcat" edits over the course of 2 and a half hours, totalled around 700 edits, resulting in ~4.6 edits per minute). As for the controversial edits, massively changing "Trivia -> Miscellanea", and wikilinking Matthew bible verses to redirect pages, as opposed to using one of the EL templates, or simply avoiding the redirect by wikilinking only the word Matthew and leaving the verse numbers. But you already have a FAQ section regarding your edit behavior with AWB, so I doubt I am mentioning anything new to you.--Andrew c 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well two things come to mind:
[edit] RE:Navboxen
Fair enought. I had not seen it. kalaha 12:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 19th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 25 | 19 June 2006 | |
|
|
||
| Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director | NY Times notices semi-protection policy |
| Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages | Undeletion of images now made possible |
| Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs | News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the News | Features and admins |
| Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | The Report On Lengthy Litigation |
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Tnavbar-mini
Just to let you know.. I've done the centering on the templates you mentioned. Should be good to go now. ;-) Netscott 14:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm actually formulating something like that as we speak. :-) Netscott 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Let's see how it looks:
Netscott 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree... I'm trying to figure out how to make the default background color come through so that the template is universal. Netscott 15:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The argument is defintely a solution but I'm just not sure if adding a third criteria is warranted if there's a way to make a whatever default color come through. You idea about actually using headin= and template=, etc. might make more sense as well... please continue to edit the new template as you see fit in that regard. Netscott 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- ok, I added a bgcolor= criteria... in accord with your idea... I still think there should be a way for the table color to be "transparent" in accord with whatever color is set by a given row. Here's an example below with the bgcolor set to #BFD7FF (like the Fifa template)
- The argument is defintely a solution but I'm just not sure if adding a third criteria is warranted if there's a way to make a whatever default color come through. You idea about actually using headin= and template=, etc. might make more sense as well... please continue to edit the new template as you see fit in that regard. Netscott 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree... I'm trying to figure out how to make the default background color come through so that the template is universal. Netscott 15:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
Netscott 15:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for you suggestion about the background color. I couldn't find a more universal solution that'd just have the formatting table be "transparent" to show a given color for a given row and work across most standard browsers. Myself and a couple of other editors had encountered this centering difficulty before and I'm not sure why it hadn't dawned on me to just make a centering header Tnavbar. After I solved the issue surrounding the Fifa templates it became perfectly logical to make one (as you came to the exact same conclusion). With the existence of the new header Tnavbar all of the previous "tough spots" that I recalled seeing previously came back to mind and I went about editing in the header... which is why it's use is already so extensive. Thanks for contacting me about the centering issue and spurring me on in that regard. Cheers! Netscott 11:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statistics
You gave a statistic for what you call 'bare' years. I am not sure how you define that. Can you let me know where you got it from?
You gave me some pointers to statistics before and I filed them carefully but have forgotten where. I pulled up 40 'Random articles' tested them against my 'dates' tool. It wanted to edit 16 of them. That depressing 40% rate works out at 480,000 articles in Wikipedia. bobblewik 19:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bot approval
I have taken a break from WP:BOTS, when I "left" I thought Essjay's proposed system would be put to use and I am surprised it has not.
Perhaps the whole process should be modelled after Articles for deletion. Each bot gets a subpage (intially used for first running approval, and later for flag approval). On the subpage, discussion occurs and an approval group member "closes" the discussion with a decision (after 7 days or whatever). Two distinct sections would be set up on Bots/Requests for approvals - initial run approval and flag approval. When flag approval is granted, the bot operator lists a request at Requested bot flags (linking to the discussion etc).
Or you could just document and use the the last bit - the use of Requested bot flags. This would solve your current flag problem I think (and I don't know why it isn't being used at the moment).
I don't have the inclination to introduce this new method, but maybe you or others do.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Only the owner process is documented, not the approvals group process". Is this asking if a different system should be introduced? Or you want to remove its "arbitrary, virtually self appointed" nature (which is perhaps odd, but seems to work well)? I can't think of a safe alternative that works, and haven't seen one proposed.--Commander Keane 12:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Days of the week and months
Thanks for your comments. You are doing great work, thanks. Incidentally, one of the reasons why I mentioned User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/datebits.js is because it deals with 'month+year'. I just wanted to be sure that you are aware of that. Feel free to ignore it or use it as you think best. No response required. Regards bobblewik 16:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
