User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2020 January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 ·

Happy New Year, Rich Farmbrough![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles Koreangauteng (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Happy holidays
Happy New Year!
Rich Farmbrough,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.


   – 2020 is a leap yearnews article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

Utopes (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #397[edit]

Came across him while stub-sorting. Even with "In use" it's not really fit for mainspace: please either add a source or move it to Draft or your sandbox until you can upgrade it. I can't find a useful online source in a quick Google or I'd have improved it myself. You've edited other stuff since creating this one-liner, so seem to have abandoned it for now. PamD 10:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for our note, and for stub-sporting, as always. I'm at work, and only making minor edits en passent on other stuff. Saved this because I had to reboot. Doesn't mean it's abandoned. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I hope you don't mind but I draftified it for now - just move it back when you've had time to add a reference or two. From a less established editor I'd have PRODded it but I thought you'd be upgrading it eventually. Just not yet encyclopedia-worthy. All the best. PamD 14:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no problem at all. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Notice

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

extremely stubby article, no assertion of notability, only one reference.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RJFJR (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed[edit]

Hi Rich. Can you rename Sukaynah Khan to Draft:Sukynah Khan. Thank You.(39.43.63.221 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

This page does not exist. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Signature changing[edit]

Hi, I noticed you changing some of my signatures without explanation. Please stop or explain. Thanks. ―Mandruss  01:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just the "&#8213" to "―", this unicodification is fairly normal, it makes wikisource more readable. I'll stop, per your request unless you tell me you don't really care. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'll consider whether it in fact makes the code more readable to code the ambiguous character than to code the unambiguous HTML code for the character. Note that I applied the same reasoning for the telephone symbol (9742), which you didn't change. In the meantime I'd prefer you left my sigs alone as a matter of principle. I appreciate it. ―Mandruss  01:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, welcome. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Why are you editing this AfD that was closed almost two years ago? How is this behavior productive? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per this discussion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You did not ask "should I do this?" but instead proclaimed "I am doing this". It is clear that the community does not want you doing things like mass editing of two year old closed AfDs. Get consensus for your mass edits first.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Edit Restriction[edit]

Rich you are not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Further, you are entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. This sanction does not replace or nullify other pre-existing sanctions on you, and may be appealed no sooner than one year from the date it was approved by the community. This sanction imposed per this ANI discussion. Please note that you might need to change your monobook.js to ensure you do not violate this restriction. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With colleagues like these... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I haven't read IH's talk page discussion recently enough to know if there's consensus to make the changes you are but note in this new restriction there must be community consensus for you to perform the change. As there is not that consensus please stop. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it seems the restriction is even more stupid than I thought. There is of course no consensus for me, explicitly to do anything. Do we now need a new noticeboard? And how do I get explicit community consensus to post to that noticeboard? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You're of course welcome to make changes that don't happen on a scale of 20-30 edits per minute, changing hundreds of pages over short periods. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. I certainly don't feel very welcome. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You would definitely be welcome to help out at WP:AFC or WP:NPP; they can always use more help! Primefac (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be a little more analytic, since editing one draft was considered to be automation, it's likely that "mass changes to articles, broadly construed" means at best two articles with similar changes. Of course the fact that a sufficient number of people don't understand what the restrictions say (never have and never will) it's likely that anything I do will be interpreted as either violating the restriction, or gaming the system, and either the restriction will be expanded or I will be wrongly blocked. In either case there's one more thing for arseholes to list when they want their own way, to demonstrate that I must be in the wrong, without anyone actually considering the encyclopedia.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, well first let me walk something back. This new restriction says articles so you seem to be OK to do your work on IH's signature though I note that at least in one instance you've now recieved pushback from both Cullen (in the question above) and Praxidicae (who reverted the change to that article) so proceed with caution. As for your question you can gain consensus short of going to a noticeboard. I understand how disappointing this kind of restriction must be to someone of your tenure and so I am guessing you actually understand that but if you need further explanation feel free to ping me with your question. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Barkeep49. It is also annoying, because it is exactly what Beeblebrox wanted, another nail in the coffin, just because his watchlist got messed up, as far as I can see. He wasn't even unhappy with the edits, per se. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
When the community demonstrated hatred of my style, it inherently blessed whomever would destroy it. At least in my view. You go, Rich! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a modest amount of fun reading several years of InedibleHulk talk page comments. My favourite was your reply to someone who chastised a third party thus "..please don't PUT STUFF IN ALL CAPS..." to which you replied along the lines of "You can't defeat caps with more caps..." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Doesn't ring a bell, but it sounds like something I'd think. YOU JUST CAN'T! Thanks for keeping me honest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep, can I ask you to clarify or confirm your "can" in "you can gain"? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're looking for IH. This was a community leveled restriction so while I closed the thread I am hesitant to issue advice to Rich (especially when he's not the one asking for it) that would not be binding on other sysops. So speaking for myself, if Rich had gotten agreement, rather than just jumping into "doing" mode that this change should happen I would consider that OK (if this change had been covered under the restriction). But I can see other sysops having issue with that. So if Rich wishes to do mass changes to articles he should do so cautiously and after having made sought consensus at a reasonable venue (preferably a central venue) for him to do those changes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering if you meant "can't" and typed "can" above. It's not important, though. I'm missing a lot of backstory, probably in over my head. Anyway, nice to meet you. May we all find our ideal venues! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that "approved by the community" is a stretch here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Rich I note that there are several users (including me and User:Yngvadottir) at InedibleHulk's talk page asking for the links in old timestamp to be removed. User:Ritchie333 even wrote a script for it. InedibleHulk explicitly allowed you to do it. And I see no one asking you not to do it. To me this looks like a clear consensus to fix those link. May I know if you are looking for something more specific like a contract or License of sorts ? If so, may be sysop User:Ritchie333 can sign it for you. --DBigXray 20:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me. I'll try to get this done over the next few days. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Request Review for Katie Bishop[edit]

Rich thanks for your comment on the Draft:Katie Bishop page. I've revised the article to keep it simple until we have additional 3rd party sources which will be appended as soon as they become available. Many thanks -- nysky1 (talk) Nysky1 (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #398[edit]

Please stop imposing your own preferences[edit]

While you no longer can do it on many pages at once, you seem to continue making edits which impose your own preferences over other acceptable styles when you make you "copyedits" or the like. Whether you do these manually or as part of a script it would be better if you stopped making such changes.

  • Changing ordinals: [1][2][3]. See MOS:CENTURY.
  • Changing "REDIRECT" to "Redirect", an utterly pointless edit which goes against the syntax given at Help:Redirect. Your style works equally well, but changes the commonly accepted and proscribed version to one of your liking.
  • Changing links from the form [[city, state]] to [[city, state|city]], state. While this is an improvement in some instances, you seem to do it consistently and blindly, leading to things like [[Montreal|Montreal]], Quebec, [[Canada]][4], which has a completely unnecessary piped link for Montreal, and then unlinks the province but keeps the better known country linked... The same type of unlinking happened here (which I already gave in the ANI discussion), where you changed [[Santa Clara, California]], [[United States]] to [[Santa Clara, California|Santa Clara]], California, [[United States]].

You can use your personal preferencs and quirks when you add text or write new articles, but please don't change the styles used by others (as long as they are MOS compliant). Fram (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, have you considered writing new articles? There are plenty of red links to go around. If you pick a subject area that interests you, pick clearly notable people, and find a couple of sources that show the notability of redlinked people in that subject area, you may find that your contributions do not encounter as much pushback as the edits of dubious value linked above.
As an example, I created Pat Hawkins (athlete) when I saw that she was clearly notable (a US National Championship winner in the women's 400-meter hurdles) and did not have an article. It was easy to find basic sources to establish the claims in the article. There are a number of red-linked names in the navboxes at the foot of that article; it should be straightforward to find sources verifying the accomplishments of most of those women. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #399[edit]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The category is no longer empty, so I removed the {{db-catempty}} template. DH85868993 (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False impression of accuracy[edit]

I also notice these bizarrely specific conversions, and couldn't agree with you more: I also find it ludicrous to see them giving false impressions of accuracy, such as the one that was formerly in this section at Bushmeat, which you corrected in this edit. May I suggest, rather than removing the conversion entirely, just use it with the rounding parameters, and that should get you what you want, without the downside of a hard-coded value in line. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot: in general I agree. However with tons/tonnes/long tonnes (or whatever it was) and an accuracy of 1m-5m the choice of unit is irrelevant. There's also an issue with one of the refs on the fishing sections which ascribes something as accurate as 7,245,547 tonnes of fish to Nigeria in 2010 and exactly the same in 2011. This may be a conversion artefact, or a question of mixing years. In either case it makes me worry about the reliability of the source. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Draughtsmen has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Draughtsmen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new missing topics list[edit]

Hi Mr. Farmbrough,

I posted a new missing topics list on WP:MISSING's talk page. A second page might need to be created since the United States section is so large. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, well done! All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Check this draft[edit]

Hi Rich. Can you check these Draft:Choi Hyo Eun and Draft:Kwon Eun Soo.(39.43.28.237 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Rich. Can you published those drafts i also added sources. Here it is.

Rich. These are the all draft i made can you check and published these all. Thank you.(39.43.14.73 (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Rich: I just finished editing a page and putting the above template on the article. You came along three minutes later and changed the dates in citations from mdy to dmy. Are you aware that if you use the template above they will be formatted properly, automatically. Saves us a lot of work. FYI. Seligne (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Your edit changed one hidden category (Use dmy dates) to a slightly different hidden category (Use dmy dates from January 2020) and otherwise made zero changes to the rendered article. A bot performs that template date tagging automatically, so there is no need for you to do it manually. A reasonable person might view that edit as a cosmetic edit in violation of your editing restriction. You have been advised multiple times to stay away from this gray area and stick to clearly substantive edits, but it looks like you are having trouble doing so. Please think carefully before continuing edits like this. You are making a clear choice to make these useless edits; this is not a case of anyone hounding you or misinterpreting your edits. You have other choices. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent cosmetic edit, in violation of your editing restrictions[edit]

This edit, while possibly helpful, appears to be a violation of your editing restrictions. It produced no change in the rendered article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Thanks for the good work in removing linked timestamps. While there is criticism for some of your automated edits there are also appreciation for the others. I hope you will keep a good balance, the beer won't help with the balancing though. cheers. DBigXray 16:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, there are about 127 pages I didn't fix, mostly in the user talk namespace. A small but vociferous minority would probably take exception. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 16:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I understand. Asking 127 users, individually on their talk pages is a huge task. --DBigXray 17:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #400[edit]

February with Women in Red[edit]

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155


Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

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

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Re: Help in moving a page[edit]

Good day User:Rich Farmbrough!

I dropped your talk page to seek your help in moving a page back to it's proper name. I have to admit I flubbed moving it back because it was moved by another editor without discussing the matter in the page's talk page. I flubbed moving the page back to it's original name, then we discussed what should be the name of the page based on the actual movie title, and I decided to acquiese to his suggestion - from the name Magnum Muslim .357, the actual name of the film is Muslim .357. But I couldn't move it back sadly, because it appears you can't move a page back to its original name if you don't have a page mover priveledge. As it stands, the page bears the very embarassing name Manum Muslim .357, we just need to take the pretty bad "Manum" spelling so that it can revert to its proper name "Muslim .357".

Hey, even if you haven't moved the page back just yet, I'd like to thank you in advance. You've helped me before when I flubbed the citations on Ang Probinsyano and its related pages, that's why I know I can count on you.

Warmest regards.

Gardo Versace (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can generally move it back, if the redirect hasn't been edited. However this redirect points somewhere else. And the intermediate redirect has two edits for some reason so it can't be "un-wound".
Magnum Muslim .357 2014
City Hunter: .357 Magnum 1989
.357 Magnum 1977
Muslim .357 1987
These are the films I am aware of, let me just review them.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 08:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I have requested this at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 09:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: Hey, I just found out the good news! Thanks again Rich! You're a lifesave, always know that I can always count on you. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]