User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous · Next

Contents

The order of this page may have been munged. Rich Farmbrough 22:32 5 May 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Spelling

Hi Rich,

I noticed an edit of yours [1] had the summary (Manually checked and maybye modified clean of pages listed via Wikipedia:Bad links#Encoded_characters using AWB).

Did you mean "maybe", or is it meant to be a pun? Andjam 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly it is not a clever pun... Thanks. Rich Farmbrough 01:23 1 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Smackbot

Thanks for being receptive to criticism. I hope to be able to support future bot requests for Smackbot (of limited scope) since I do believe that the non-contentious edits performed by Smackbot were helpful. Kaldari 02:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sep11 wiki

Thanks for your comments. I've read through the various proposals to delete, move, etc. the wiki somewhere other than sep11.wikipedia.org. However, I'm not sure if anyone is moving toward a decision, and don't want to put too much work into cleaning up articles if they will just end up being deleted. I know memorywiki has taken the testimonials, but don't think they have taken the sep11:Tributes_to_individuals. Many of these presumably were articles originally written on Wikipedia, but moved to sep11 wiki (per WP:BIO). If the sep11 wiki is just completely deleted without moving or archiving these articles, then I think it leaves a void. Perhaps, the bio articles about the victims could be moved back to Wikipedia (with my watchlist growing accordingly), and the tributes to memorywiki. In my opinion, each victim is as notable and worthy of an article as the 19 hijackers are (and a few of the victims do have Wikipedia articles). Or, as a very last resort, I might be willing to take the database, buy a domain, hosting for it. --Aude (talk | contribs) 02:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've actually tried moving some of the more encyclopedic articles back into Wikipedia, but was met with harsh resistance. They were summarily deleted under the chant "Wikipedia is not a memorial". If the sept 11 wiki is ever closed (which is a big "if") I very seriously doubt the content would be deleted outright. At the worst, it will get archived into a big zip file. Kaldari 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regex (cont'd)

See User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Talk_Archive_8#Re:_RegEx and User_talk:Mathwiz2020#RegEx

I was thinking about the regex script you wrote and, as soon as SourceForge CVS is back up and I can download the latest code, I'll work on adding your regex, plus the requested modifications, to AWB's general fixes. I just have one question. For the regex:

\[\[([^\]\|]+)\|(\1)([^\]\|\-\'\s]*)\]\] => [[$2]]$3

Why can't there be a hyphen or apostrophe after the pipe? Why not change [[Tom|Tom's]] to [[Tom]]'s and [[Tom|Tom-Jerry]] to [[Tom]]-Jerry? I understand, though, why you don't want to change [[Tom|Tom and Jerry]] to [[Tom]] and Jerry. Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expand / stub

So many articles are marked stub that the system is a waste of time. "Expand" at least offers some hope that something will get done as it is less used. 62.31.55.223 05:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please block

Notice you're an active admin. Can oyu please block: 64.160.211.191. Posted "I love the cock" in American Civil Rights. thanks. Avraham 15:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That was fast, thanks. the vandalism was actually sitting there for about 20 minutes.

[edit] Transwiki "Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture" to wikisource?

I recommended that Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture be moved to wikisource. Like you I made some good faith edits to that article without realizing that it was not a summary of the document, but a cut and paste of the original.

Since you did some work on the article I thought you might want to voice an opinion on the transwiki. Have you ever been involved in a transwiki?

Cordially, Geo Swan 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag size

To my knowledger the flag size has consistently been 20px. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem - this is just one of a number of IP based, unannounced, undescussed edits being done also in an inconsistant fashion. Yours was just the first "Named" user envolved. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smackbot

I don't think putting the catgories into alphabetical order instead of a sensible order is "minor", I think it is considerable damage. If you are going to do this, please disclose that you are not making "minor edits", but it would be much better to stop doing it IMO. Osomec 20:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of 204.184.95.250

I noticed you temporarily blocked this IP address. Since his/her block has expired he/she has started vandalising again. I have issued a warning. Perhaps we can consider a more long-term ban? TydeNet 15:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smackbot de-flagged

Hi Rich, as you may have noticed SmackBot was de-flagged a few days ago (see m:Requests_for_bot_status#en:User:SmackBot and [2])

Is it OK for you to move SmackBot's listing on WP:BOTS from Wikipedia:Bots#Bots with a flag to Wikipedia:Bots#Bots running without a flag?

Also, I'd be interested to know what your intentions are re. submitting a new bot request? If the tasks are well described and non-controversial, I don't see why I wouldn't support such request! --Francis Schonken 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Further I'd like to invite you not to use any other account at bot speed, for instance your most recent edits with the Rich Farmbrough account show:
  1. 13:51, 8 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m John D. Barrow (spelling) (top)
  2. 13:51, 8 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Balata (spelling) (top)
  3. 13:51, 8 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Tokusatsu (spelling) (top)
  4. 13:51, 8 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Walther P99 (spelling) (top)
  5. 13:51, 8 April 2006 (hist) (diff) m Spennymoor (spelling) (top)
Five edits in less than a minute is at bot speed; and doing spelling corrections at bot speed is in itself a bit controversial... (it was one of the given reasons - not by me - why modbot's bot approval request was denied not so long ago...).
Sorry to make a fuss again, but please, behave ;) --Francis Schonken 16:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your point taken too... I was surprised and checked quick edits in my last 500 contributions, what I found:

  1. Resulting from "tabbed browsing" after merging separate Bourgeois dab issues to Bourgeois (disambiguation):
    • 10:49, 29 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Bourgeoisie (Bourgeois dab page)
    • 10:49, 29 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Louis Bourgeois (merging with "bourgeois" dab page) (top)
    • 10:49, 29 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Bourgeois (disambiguation) (expand) (top)
  2. Page moves with a page that has a non-empty talk page auto-create 4 edits in less than a minute (well, unless wikipedia is extremely slow),
    • 00:53, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala (moved Talk:Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala to Talk:The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing: per wikipedia:naming conventions (books)#Title translations) (top)
    • 00:53, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala (moved Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala to The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing: per wikipedia:naming conventions (books)#Title translations) (top)
    • 00:53, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Talk:The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing (moved Talk:Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala to Talk:The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing: per wikipedia:naming conventions (books)#Title translations) (top)
    • 00:53, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing (moved Al-Kitāb al-muḫtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-ğabr wa-l-muqābala to The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing: per wikipedia:naming conventions (books)#Title translations)
  3. Double redirect cleanup after a page move can also be somewhat speedier than than 1/30sec:
    • 01:06, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī hīsāb al-ğabr wa’l-muqābala (avoiding double redirect) (top)
    • 01:06, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Al-Gabr (avoiding double redirect) (top)
    • 01:06, 27 March 2006 (hist) (diff) m Al-Jabr (avoiding double redirect) (top)

Notwithstanding that, I'm a bit suspicious of spelling corrections at 4 per minute on completely unrelated pages... my point is that one has to read sentences/paragraphs and check other issues (e.g. whether one isn't changing a hyperlink instead of making a typo correction etc...), I give you some examples:

  • (this one was done by a non-humanly-checked bot, so I hope you don't take offense I use this example; my point is that this change was done completely in accordance with current typo lists available in Wikipedia; and that it would've taken MORE THAN 15 SECs to realise [a] that this was nonsense; and [b] that the text between ".png|" and "|thumb" should've been removed instead of improved): diff changed:
    "[...] anual opening of the Congress [...]"
    to
    "[...], anal opening of the Congress [...]"
  • (this one is by you, you already acted on my remark regarding it, just mentioning again here in the context of 15 sec changes:) diff changed the Claude Debussy page in 5 places; it is my contention that one needs more than 3 secs per change for finding out that the 3rd of these changes was no-good (Chopin's → Chopin's)

Regards, --Francis Schonken 12:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shock and Awe

The following posted on about 28 admin's talk pages by Larne. Rich  Farmbrough 17:19 9  April 2006 (UTC).

Hello Mr. Farmbrough, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[3] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted to change content you might have succeeded had you not attempted to rope in loads of other editors. Rich Farmbrough 12:34 9 April 2006 (UTC).
Hi Rich, I would ask as a courtesy that you remove "Larnue's" (aka Zephram's) post from this page, which is a personal attack against me from a banned troll. See (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark, Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Zephram Stark, Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Zephram_Stark) for details about his modus operandi. He creates at least several sockpuppets a week, which are usually easy to spot, and they are banned. I'm just one the editors that reverts his edits (I could care less about what is in the Shock and Awe article.) Actually, your comment explains a lot about his behavior. If he really wanted to simply change the content, he could have made some attempt to behave more like an actual new editor. But his massive personal attack against me gave him away. He isn't interested in article content, just causing trouble. That's one of the reasons he was banned in the first place. --JW1805 (Talk) 14:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi JW, I would rather keep it on my talk page, until archived, it seems a fairly crude and feeble ploy, it would rather blacken the perpetrator's name than your own. Rich Farmbrough 17:19 9 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Smackbot on FastCGI

Smackbot just edited the mod_{perl|php|python} links in FastCGI, changing the underscores to spaces. The links still go to the proper pages, but I'd argue that the link text is incorrect. For once the links really should have an underscore in them! What do you think? Am I being too picky? Imroy 10:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting problem. I've fixed up that page, but the general solution is harder, perhaps we need a stop list for some of these functions (still not perfect I know). Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough 11:33 14 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Stubs

Hi! I noticed that when Smackbot applies general fixes, it moves the stub note to the very bottom of the page (example). It was always my belief that stub messages should be following the article body, and then followed by categories and interwikis. Could you look into this, please? Not a big deal, but when I, for example, edit pages, I do not expect to see a stub message after the interwikis. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There's an archived discussion here. The salient points seem to be
  • There's not a mandated place.
  • Stubs are an editor feature (and a form of sef-reference) so belong at the end after user features. Regards. Rich Farmbrough 12:38 14 April 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for pointing me out to the archived discussion; while I was sure the issue had been discussed before, I was unable to find an archived thread on my own.
One question I still have is about your second point above. Stub notices are an editor's feature, true, but to the reader the categories will always show in the very bottom of the page, no matter where in the edit screen they are located. For the reader, it really makes no difference. For the sake of editors (those, who frequent the "edit this page" tab), however, wouldn't it be more convenient to leave the stubs immediately after the main text (i.e., before cats and interwikis), especially since the location isn't mandated anyway? I realize that "stubs-to-bottom" is an AWB feature, but somehow in the archived discussion nobody mentioned the point I am trying to make. What do you think?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Stubs include a category, so they should definately come after any "real" categories. Before or after interwiki is debateable, perhaps it doesn't matter much. Rich Farmbrough 17:24 14 April 2006 (UTC).
I guess I simply do not understand the purpose. OK, suppose we put the stub notices after categories, but what's the point? It makes no difference to readers (cats will show up in the browser after stub notices anyway), and it makes no difference to most of the editors. It is a minor annoyance to editors like me, however, who are accustomed to seeing stub notices right after the main text. Now, on the other hand, if we put notices to where editors like me are accustomed to seeing them (right after text), it would have no effect whatsoever on readers (the article will look exactly the same), and those editors who did not care in the first place will continue to not care about it. Editors like me will get rid of the inconvenience. So, is it really worth to inconvenience some people just for the sake logical purity of the article's structure?
Speaking of "logical purity", I don't even see it. If the article structure is "text+stubs+cats+iw", then, if some stubs contain cats, it translates to "text+(stub+cat)+cats+iw" = "text+stub+cats+iw"—nice and logical. If we put stubs after main categories, then the final structure will look like "text+cats+(stub+cat)+iw"—category list flow is interrupted. What's the logic in that? No matter which way you put it, it does not make sense!
I am not trying to make a big deal out of it, lest you got that impression; it is admittedly a very insignificant point. It's just that I enjoy being logical as much as the next guy, and just couldn't miss a chance to debate such a woefully incongruous inconsistency. If I missed anything in my logic or if you are sick and tired of this discussion, please let me know—I have no intention of forcing you to continue discussion you do not enjoy (I'm only keeping it out of my eternal ever-burning desire to get to the bottom of things :). Best, —Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look here you will see that having stub before cats gives a cat listing like this:
Categories: Northwestern Russia geography stubs | Cities and towns in Vologda Oblast.
Rich Farmbrough 21:10 14 April 2006 (UTC).
Ah, got you! Only took me what? A day?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two little problems

[edit] Leonard N. Stern

Vandalism again! Cheers, --Beth Wellington 17:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Rash

Can you figure out why the "</ref>" is showing up in the reference section? I can't! I'm sure it's some small typo in my code I didn't catch, but I copied it exactly (I thought) from Alberto Rios, y no esta problemo ayi. Adios,--Beth Wellington 17:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Still having problems. Rash asked me to cite a news release instead and it's got a glitch and the library is closing.--Beth Wellington 22:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I got the template to work, but the article name, which should be in quotations is showing up in ital. Have a nice Easter or Passover or whatever, Cheers.--Beth Wellington 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actions taken

I have blocked the anon IP, and left warnings on the other users pages that have done this in the past. Your ref problem was a /ref at the end of the article. Best wishes, Rich Farmbrough 21:03 14 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Too hasty

You were too hasty in editing Dandelin spheres. The applet is JDandelin, not J Dandelin. Michael Hardy 23:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it not then JDandelinEn ? Rich Farmbrough 23:17 15 April 2006 (UTC).

What is says conspicuously on the page that is linked to is JDandelin. I don't know where you got "En". Michael Hardy 23:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 7=7?

I fixed the bug, thanks for pointing it out. BTW, please read the notice on top of the page and "Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page" ;-) --Dijxtra 14:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A plea - Excessive deletion of blank lines

Hello Rich,

I'm sure you mean well by removing those blank lines between headers and text. But in fact, it makes no difference to the appearance of the article, and it also makes the articles harder to edit, by making a messy and hard-to-interpret edit screen. (Sensible people use white space on the page when writing, to help keep everything well organized.)

Might it be more useful to spend your time combating vandalism instead?

Thanks for listening. Yours sincerely, Opus33 00:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I can also think of better ways to edit articles. Since the blank lines are not displayed, and since they make life so much clearer for editors who simply edit articles "in the raw", please restrict yourself to fixing problems rather that formatting text that very few people bother to look at, but many people use. I am currently resisting the temptation to waste my own time by reverting those edits where you have removed a blank line in this manner on pages where I've contributed. Fiddle Faddle 11:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
To back this plea up, Wikipedia itself, when it creates an article on (eg) a talk page such as this one, puts a blank line beneath the heading when you create a new topic using the "+" symbol. Now, that seems to me to be conclusive evidence that the blank line is meant to be there - the system is designed to do that itself. If it's good enough for the software it's good enough for me. Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tide Mills, East Sussex

Is this the article you refer to? Rich Farmbrough 11:41 25 April 2006 (UTC).

Hi Rich,
I'm assuming you are responding to my note on your talk page? It is one of several articles you have been using AWB on recently. And I naturally have no objection to your fixing issues with the page(s) - indeed where there is an issue, either factual or of standards then "fixed" is what should happen.
I am simply pleading for blank lines that cause no issue in the published article to be left for ease of editor navigation. I know one can edit each section, but it is often easier to edit the totality of an article. I also know that many articles are inconsistent because some editors leave a blank line between a heading and the text and others do not. And some editors are not "self consistent" either.
Especially where headings are nested, blank lines after them make an editor's life easier when editing the entire article. Hence my plea on your talk page. I was interested that another editor had commented so joined with them in my request.
Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised, because the article in question I had actually added blank lines. Where I have removed blank lines it has been pretty much all manual, so your coming across one or more of these as well as Tide Mills, East Sussex seems coincidence. Regards. Rich Farmbrough 22:18 25 April 2006 (UTC).
Following this conversation is getting really hard. I guess it would have been easier if you had made your first response here rather than responding initially on my talk page and then copying that all (well most of it) over here. The answer is that there is either a real or a perceived issue that seems not to agree with what you say clearly that you have done when editing. Since what you are saying is that you inserted blank lines (presumably for edit legibility) and did this manually, but two of us are saying that this appears not to be the case, I guess the point is probably both made and responded to and over? Fiddle Faddle 00:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Further to your response on my talk page, sure. Rich Farmbrough 11:16 26 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Daijiro Kato - Passed Away

Rich, HRC (Honda Racing Corporation) released a statement on Kato's death. The statement says "passed away" not "died". Please stop reverting it. Here is a link to the statement on SuperbikePlanet.com [4]. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISBN

Thanks fo rhe info. Had no idea. Copied the usage from some other page where it was wrong. so sorry. Cheers--Beth Wellington 23:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Passed away"

Can you provide a rationale for your crusade against these two harmless words? Thanks, Ghirla -трёп- 06:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Passed away" is usually a euphemism. It doesn't say what it means. It is idiomatic. It is not encyclopaedic in tone. It is verbose. (See also parrot sketch.) "Died" is accurate, clear, concise universal English. Incidentally it is mentioned explicitly at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article#writing. Rich Farmbrough 08:45 27 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] UConn

I just saw your bot-assisted edits on Geno Auriemma. The article defines the colloqialism "UConn," which is used correctly in many articles about the basketball team. Your change left a couple of occasions like "his arrival at University of Connecticut," which is grammatically incorrect. It should never be used as first reference, but globally replacing UConn with University of Connecticut is a mistake, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 14:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds like you've got it under control. It seems to me like the basketball (and, to a lesser extent, football) articles will be the most prone to problems. Especially watch the article UConn-Tennessee rivalry.--Mike Selinker 14:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S. P. Timoshenko

[edit] Publications

I am new to Wikipedia. So I thought I would ask a question before editing this item. Is it permissible to list books authored by Timoshenko with others? Here are three books very important for the subject Engineering Mechanics . I would like to list those books.
  1. Theory of Plates and Shells S. P. Timoshenko with S. Woinosky-Krieger, McGraw Hill, second edition, 1959
  2. Theory of Elasticity S. P. Timoshenko with J. N. Goodier, McGraw Hill, Third edition, 1970
  3. Mechanics of Materials S. P. Timoshenko with J. M. Gere, D. Van Nostrand, First edition, 1972

Subhash 19:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought Stephen Timoshenko#Publications would be a great place to list these. Rich Farmbrough 20:45 16 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] AWB thrashing

What the heck are you doing? There's no reason to change 18th century to eighteenth century, and you didn't convert the article (a to an). Stop.

--William Allen Simpson 07:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Heck, I've found so many problems, I'm raising it at Wikipedia talk:Bots, and perhaps at the Village Pump.

--William Allen Simpson 08:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maximilian von Spee

No references on this article at all, except one I just added. Do you know of anyone who likes do work on such? (Did write the person who started the article. Cheers,--Beth Wellington 01:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No idea, perhaps this is a challenge for User:SuggestBot's owner, User:ForteTuba? Rich Farmbrough 18:44 18 April 2006 (UTC).

Done. Thanks for the info.--Beth Wellington 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] &sup2; replacements

I noticed your AWT replaced this special character entity in the Cell processor page with a superscript 2 character code (Unicode I presume). What is the advantage of this? Firefox does not find the super 2 character code in mm² when searching for the ASCII string "2". Is there a page that discusses the policy behind botification from markup entities to extended charcodes? MaxEnt 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As you may know there are a number of ways of doing superscripts, particularly squares x² x² x2, x² and x2, that I know of. There are pros and cons for them all, but Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Character_formatting suggests using the Unicode for 1,2,3 (also there is a redirect sitting at km², for example). When you are editing a page you can select these from the box of funny characters just under the Save/Show/Show buttons. You can also cut and paste them into the Firefox search box, they will search and highlight in the same way as other characters. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 19:25 18 April 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for the link. Confusing. The sup notations render into single characters (as seen in FF "view source") but not the same way as the Unicode chars directly entered. The sup chars (1,2,3) have lower baselines and they are slightly wider too. When pasting the rendered page source into xemacs (non-Unicode build I guess), it came out like this:
x^(0) x¹ x² x³ x^(4)
x^(5) x^(6) x^(7) x^(8) x^(9)
This still doesn't explain the pref. for Unicode chars over the entity notation, which translates (for me at least) into characters from a different code block. I have a watch set here, no further need to edit my talk page. MaxEnt 19:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
There was discussion of this somewhere, the advantage with <sup> is that you can use the same format for any superscript. I'm not sure which are amenable to CSS, most mainstream browsers will have the ability to display them all (but complex math can get embedded into graphics, which breaks accessibility), though this may exclude things like phones and personal organisers. XEmacs has this to say "However, as of 2005, the released version depends on the unmaintained package called Mule-UCS to support Unicode, while GNU Emacs has had robust integrated Unicode support since before 2003. The development branch of XEmacs has had robust native support for external Unicode encodings since May 2002, but the internal Mule character sets are incomplete, and development seems stalled as of September 2005."
Interesting. Rich Farmbrough 21:14 18 April 2006 (UTC).
P.S. you might find this intersting, it goes into more detail than I care to. [5] Rich Farmbrough 21:14 18 April 2006 (UTC).
Yesterday I installed MediaWiki on a FC4 machine of my own for a research topic I'm pursuing, so I'm paying more attention to small details than a normal person might. I didn't know that about Xemacs, either. It worked better on the Win 2000 machine I was using at the time, and I've never bothered to switch since. I found you again checking out Wikipedia statistics pages. As a programmer I wouldn't be too keen on substituting out character entities in PHP source code for Unicode characters, but after I thought about it, it's probably more accessible for Wikipedia newbies to cut and paste character text (including char codes once regarded as non-primary) without encountering the entity syntax. At first it seemed strange that a bot/bot-assistant would target such a trivial difference, rather than say muddling up en-dashes with em-dashes, which is more significant in presentation. MaxEnt 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Did you have any problems with images? I have set up two WM (1.4 I think) on RH 9, and never resolved some issues with certain image handling libraries. It still works, but you can't use all the formats, or re-size. Rich Farmbrough 07:31 19 April 2006 (UTC).
I was going to get back to you the other morning that WP was down. At that point I had equations rendering, but I hadn't enabled image upload yet. Made a pass at that today. Upload successful, but the MIME types are still foobared. Also added a cool little custom search enhancement to the Firefox search bar for my local MediaWiki. Sweet. Let's continue this discussion on my talk page which is less trafficked. MaxEnt 07:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter.

Hello there. You have proposed the article CLDR (Covenant Language and Development Resources) for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How PROD works. Sandstein 20:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Lara

You have changed the text form "passed away" to "died". Please tell me what is the difference? Is there any such need to do so. Shyam (T/C) 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Passed away" is usually a euphemism. It doesn't say what it means. It is idiomatic. It is not encyclopaedic in tone. It is verbose. (See also parrot sketch.) "Died" is accurate, clear, concise universal English. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 22:42 18 April 2006 (UTC).
Incidentally it is mentioned explicitly at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article#writing. Rich Farmbrough 23:03 18 April 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for clarification. Shyam (T/C) 03:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EXIT festival

Thanks for cleaning it up a bit. Us non-native English speakers appreciate it. Have you considered visiting this year? :) Titanium 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I should be so lucky! Rich Farmbrough 23:04 18 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Passed away --> died on Kali Yuga article

Hi Rich, I reverted the correction that you made to the Kali Yuga article for two reasons. One, 'passed away' is part of a direct quote in the article. The other, more important, is that 'passed away' in that passage refers to a number of years (4,994) passing away, rather than a person. There are a couple of years in my wild youth that seemingly 'died', rather than 'passed', but in this context it's probably not appropriate. Is this a bot that made the correction? Just curious. ॐ Priyanath 17:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks. No it's not, there are about 1% quotes and about 1% correct usage. This was, unusually, both and I didn't spot it, must have been tired. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough 15:57 22 April 2006 (UTC).

It's an easy mistake to make, even if you weren't tired. A few hours after I reverted it, someone else tried to change 'passed away' to 'elapsed', and then saw that it was a direct quote and reverted themselves. It is getting rather Monty Pythonish..... ॐ Priyanath 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claudia Emerson

An anonymous poster reinserted a blog as an external source. I suspect it's the blog's owner, Mr. Purdy (gwpurdy@yahoo.com). The blog has no information of value not already listed in the article as an external source. I thought we didn't use blogs as sources. I think it's just an attempt to drive traffic to his site. I wouldn't drive traffice to my blog that way. And I have the same links available. What think ye?--Beth Wellington 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Purdy is very mad. He's even started a new blog to decry the situation. Sigh.--Beth Wellington 03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with dates in a template for references. Tried several things. None worked. I'm sure it's something simple. Help, please and let me know the fix. Thanks mr. Purdy's latest accomplishment. Linking to a site that took a poem from poetry without proper attribution, rather than linking to Poetry He proudly says NPR is using his screed against Wikipedia. He also brags that the admins here removed the complaints about him--actually it was just archived. Sigh redux.--Beth Wellington 00:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Rich, if you look at the reference section, when I tried to wikify dates in refernces, the brackets show. Thanks--Beth Wellington08:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

'Preciate it!--Beth Wellington 16:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1WW Refactor

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Really old regex request

About a month ago, you asked me to debug this regex. Well, I've implemeneted it into Martin's formatting script! Just added it to your monobook.js and you can click the "format" tab at the top to implement your regex, along with many others. I haven't addressed the BC/BCE problem yet but I probably will in about five minutes. --M@thwiz2020 21:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixing that problem would require me to change the code a lot and I don't want to do that right now although I might get around to it someday. Until then, the user must just be wary for any false positives. (If you're going to be running this code with Smackbot on date articles, though, then I will fix it soon.) Feel free to test out the code on User:Mathwiz2020/sandbox! --M@thwiz2020 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Really [insert interrobang] What's the regex? And a few questions about your questions... I don't know perl, so what's tr? And what do you mean by a second row of tabs? Do you mean you want userpage, disucssion, edit... new row, format, something else, etc.? --M@thwiz2020 21:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the only way to add "two rows" of tabs would be to have just one tab that, when you hover over it, produces a column of tabs beneath it (like a pop-out menu). --M@thwiz2020 22:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What happened to him/her/it/miscellaneous pronoun for "bot"? --M@thwiz2020 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, you must have the longest monobook.js file in history! My tip: move the census functions to User:Rich Farmbrough/monobook.js/census.js and then just include that file in your monobook.js file. As for the second line, I'm working on that code. --M@thwiz2020 22:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to the second row of tabs thing, I can't seem to figure it out. However, you can always do something like User:Bluemoose/monobook.js/catkey.js, which adds a button to the edit toolbar. (The button only works for adding text, though, it can't parse it.) --M@thwiz2020 00:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, try this code:
function myFunction()
{
  var image = document.createElement("img");
  image.width = 23;
  image.height = 22;
  image.src = "http://www.something.com/something.png";
  image.border = 0;
  image.alt = "Do something";
  image.title = "Do something";
  image.style.cursor = "pointer";
  image.onclick = doSomething(document.getElementById('wpTextbox1').value);
  document.getElementById('toolbar').appendChild(image);
}
This should work. --M@thwiz2020 00:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You can also add a link to the toolbox at left using Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/addLink and parameter where = "p-tb". --M@thwiz2020 00:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bremgarten

Your bot to fix caps in headings changed 'In Germany' to 'In germany'. Colonies Chris 09:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

TYVM! Rich Farmbrough 10:31 30 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Ordinal numbers

I just saw that on Avagadro's number you've changed “19th century” to “nineteenth century.” I haven't found anything in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) that says ordinals are discouraged. In fact, I think they're a lot clearer in most cases. Further, the style page mentioned uses ordinal dates. Am I missing something? — Vijay 21:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right WP:MOSNUM does use ordinals, both numeric and spelt out. Many users, myself included, prefer to spell out smaller numbers (where the definition of smaller varies), in particular I see labelling centuries as numeric as note-taking style, and not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Rich Farmbrough 22:12 1 May 2006 (UTC).
I definitely agree that smaller numbers (I usually use the <100 definition, but I'm flexible) ought to be spelled out. Although I guess I usually have only applied it to cardinal numbers. I've never heard of "note-taking style," and I would be interested in knowing if any publications do use numeral ordinals. Of course, I usually try to make the suffix superscripted in that case, but most HTML renders superscripting quite ugly. Oh well. I guess that I'll denumeralize (new word!) ordinals when and if I see them. — Vijay 23:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ʻokina

I think you have found out now in the hard way that the { {okina} } template is not there for nothing. Maybe one day in future, when most Windows Explorer owners will have updated, we can do away with it. But not yet now, I am afraid. Still suggestions for improvement are welcome. --Tauʻolunga 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That was a long time ago! Rich Farmbrough 09:40 3 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] hey

hey this is me