User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2012 September

Previous · Index · Next

MoS (Japan-related) and embedding Japanese in English Wikipedia

• I don't know who put it in the MoS, but the advice on embedding Japanese in English Wikipedia is wrong. Several kanji examples in this MoS page are also not properly tagged. (If you know anybody else who is interested in this topic, please either advise them or let me know their User name so that I can notify them before I make any changes to the MoS.)
• When embedding multiple languages in a web page, it's advisable to use the lang tag as semantic markup (1) to indicate the correct language to the browser—the browser will then choose a font that includes the character set for that language to render the snippet of text that you marked with language tags. The other reason (2) for using such semantic markup is that Google is not forced to guess the language—sometimes, or even often, it guesses wrong for Chinese and Japanese. The reason is that some Unicode character code points are shared by Chinese and Japanese. In a Japanese font, a Unicode character can be displayed quite differently than the same Unicode character displayed in a Chinese font. There are some examples here. With many European languages one can often get away with not using the lang tag. But Japanese embedded in English text and not properly tagged is likely to be garbled if displayed on a Chinese PC—and vice versa. In Wikipedia, the mechanism for lang-tagging is Template:Lang and other related templates such as the Nihongo templates for explaining embedded Japanese (there are also Chinese templates for explaining Chinese). In Japanese web pages, for example, if English is not tagged as such then it is displayed using a Japanese font, and looks really ugly. FYI there's a Japanese web page tagged for English, Chinese, and Korean here. LittleBen (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The best approach to fixing this is to either change the MoS page or discuss it on the talk page. The user who added the advice may no longer be interested, or may have left. As far as the {{Lang}} template is concerned I am a big supporter, if more refinement is needed,please let me know. Rich Farmbrough, 02:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC).

• Belated thanks for your comments. LittleBen (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for for translating the Toon Dupuis article. Another red link disappeared on the Englisch Wikipedia.

Lotje (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Soft Kitty! Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC).

Do you know Dutch or is the translators good enough to work out the text? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Translator is good enough, for an article like that. In fact you can quickly learn a few words, and some are very similar to English anyway. The risk is false friends of course. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

I thought grammar maybe difficult. How about the reverse creating a foreign language article from the English one? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 17:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried that, got zapped. But I have created Swahili articles form scratch, by example, and with help. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

Template:Portal talk

Heyo. I'm looking at Portal talk:Contents/Portals where {{Portal talk}} is included, and wondering how to edit that template to: "remove the horizontal line between the list of Archives and the searchbox". The table code mixed with parser functions is hurting my brain; can you easily fix? If not, I'll nag someone else. Ta! :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Like this?

Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

Ahh, nope, the horizontal rule under the words "Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4", but now that I'm less distracted, I could see and have just removed the offending css... >.< Sorry, and thanks anyway! -- Quiddity (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

• News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

• Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

• Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

• Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six

Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.

A lovely little teahouse nestled in Germany from Wiki Loves Monuments

• Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
• Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
• New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
• Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge.
Message added 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes

• Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention

• In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal

• Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi

• Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial

• News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus"

• Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...

• Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please change your script to no longer remove spaces from section headers.

Whatever script you are using, it is still removing spaces from headers, e.g. [1][2][3][4]. These articles had before your edit a uniform system of section header spacing (with spaces between the "==" and the section title on both sides), but now have some section headers with spaces and some without. This violates the main section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason". Please refrain from making these or similar changes. Fram (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see evidence of a script Fram. You are in error. If it were a script, then it would have removed the spaces in the "== Application of microcredit ==", "== History ==", "== Application of microcredit ==", "=== Struggling members program ==="...in fact EVERY section of Grameen Bank but the one you are complaining about that he changed. Can we please drop the whitespace arguments, drop the sticks, and walk away? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No. Can we please stop the whitespace changes instead? Do you really believe that Rich farmbrough is patiently (and pointlessly) removing all the spaces at the end of bulleted entries and paragraphs by hand[5][6]? It certainly gives the strong impression of being script-based. Fram (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Fram, I've already shown you how it is not a script, but your sure it is and are going after him for it...over whitespaces. This is absurd. Drop it. Drop the stick and walk away. If there really is a problem here worth the time, someone else will come along to address it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that theory has been used in the previous discussions a lot, even though it has been shown to be incorrect time and time again. Fram (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I have to be honest Fram, these edits don't really bother me. Frankly, what bothers me more is that where Rich formerly did thousands and thousands of edits per day between he and his bots, he now does 20 - 50 at most. Additionally, since none of the other bot operators want to do most of these tasks (such as the WikiProject Watchlists) it means they won't get done at all. So for me, even if he did do a few minor edits that you and a couple of other editors got him automation banned for, the pedia has been harmed far far more by his lack of edits and by your crusade against minor edits that it is by doing them. I personally wish you would just find something else to do. Continuously hounding an editor over a few minor edits is, IMO, really really bad conduct for an Admin. Personally I think its stupid and I find it also rather stupid that I can't be trusted with the admin bit but some admins like you are allowed to hound other editors without interferance over things that are of such insignificance that they are nearly meaningless. Kumioko (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Still, it is a bit absurd to have an editor (Rich) to remove whitespace within headers while bots add them (even in archives). This is an endless war with no winners. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
          • To clarify: I am not against small edits as soon as we have a concrete where we want to go. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Kumioko, he was banned for the many errors in his edits (and a number of other issues e.g. about dealing with those errors), not for the minor edits as such. Any reason why he continues making the same edits that go against the guidelines now that he is only editing manually? If it is not caused by a script, then it isn't carelessness but repeated and deliberate editing against guidelines. Fram (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• @Fram, I was involved in that case and I am very familiar with what was said. Your right to a point but the vast majority of arguments and discussions were based on minor edits. I have seen no less than a dozen editors in the last week alone doing edits that are the same or worse than these and I didn't see your name on even one of their talk pages so it leads me to the belief that you are hounding. When its nearly always the same editor showing up on the same paeg complaining about what seems to be every edit an editor makes, it appears like hounding. Also, IMO, if he wants to use his time removing minor errors, spaces, etc. fine, its his time. I also don't think he is going against guidelines in doing these by the way. There are some rules and suggestions that automated tools not be used in this way but as far as I know very little about doing it manually. So your argument that he is violating guidelines isn't really accurate outside that you don't like it.
• @Magioladitis, I understand what you are saying but here is my take on that. If the bots are adding them, then the bots should be changed to not add them. The bots should not be adding or removing these as doing either at this point in time, seems to be against general concensus. We should not be telling one editor that they are violating the policy by removing spaces when we allow or look the other way when a bot is adding them. That sort of wishy washiness is what gets people frustrated with the rules and causes people to leave.
• @Both, We should not be enforcing the rules when we feel like it or when we agree with it and looking the other way when we don't. If the policy is there then we should be enforcing it evenly, not targetting certain editors because one or 2 editors has a bone to pick or wants to make a name for themselves. This is how I have always felt but yet many admins pick an extreme view and then try and railroad editors into their way of doing things. It happens a lot, I see it all the time. But we let them, because they are admins, they are "trusted" and the rest of us are just scummy regular editors and have no rights, trust, respect or say in what goes on. Then they take the productive editors rights away (like Rich), push them out and then run around wondering why the edit numbers are down and less people are editing when it was their fault they left because they are keeping the wrong people. Since January I have seen nearly 2 dozen productive editors get the boot or quite in frustration because if this kind of nonsense and its time it stops but I am powerless to do anything about it because I am just as hated because I want the ones in power to do the right thing and most of them it seems have their own agendas rather than building an encyclopedia. These days its more like Politipedia. Sorry that was a bit of a rant but I find it extremely frustrating that the community tells me I cannot be trusted and then they let admins go rogue like Fram, CBM and others and do whatever they want but I am the untrustworthy jerk. Kumioko (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Kumioko, have you actually compared the MOS I linked above with the edits Rich Farmbrough makes? This has nothing to do with what is allowed manually but not by automation. This type of edits, i.e. adding or removing whitespace from (some) headers when another style was used in the article, isn't allowed at all. It is also utterly pointless. It is not difficult to stop making such edits. So can you give one good reason why he continued making them anyway? Fram (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Fram, can you give one good reason why you introduced a white space between section headers and content here and here when the formatting choices were consistent within the articles before you changed them? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • (inserting this between Hammersoft's question and Kumioko's poorly indented next post). Because these edits actually follow the MOS, instead of violating them like Rich Farmbrough's edits? Just read WP:MOSHEAD instead of giving the false impression that my edits are similar to his, please: "The heading must be typed on a separate line. Include one blank line above the heading, and optionally one blank line below it, for readability in the edit window. (Only two or more consecutive blank lines will add more white space in the public appearance of the page.)" Consistency comes only into play when multiple styles are acceptable (e.g. spaces inside section headers, or reflist vs. references). Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Fram I could offer several reasons why many of these edits are useful and in fact I have several times before. Since you failed to listen then, I see no reason why adding them yet again would change it and you would undoubtedly argue that the reasons weren't good enough so the debate is merely academic and futile. I do suggest as others have here and in the past that you disengage for a while and do some other tasks. If Rich is in such violation of policy as you say then others will bring it up. Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't really like this discussion because it looks like a WP:BATTLE and Wikipedia is not (should not be) a battleground. I am one the supporters that small changes should be done but I made a lot of effort to satisfy those who disagree. Rich has been one of the pioneers in standardising things without checking it cost in number of edits and I admire this. Without Rich we wouldn't have standardise the WikiProjects for instance. Even worse, the names of many tags would have remained unreadable. On the other hand Fram has been always very good in finding bug mistakes in scripts, AWB, etc. Even better he does a very good use of AWB to make his life and our life easier. Conclusion: I like to cooperate with both of them and I don't like a discussion like this one. If we isolate the discussion on the section headers Rich is wrong, at least IMO. Mediawiki adds headers with spaces if someone presses "New section" on the top. If Rich wants us to move to the other direction (I have no strong feelings on either way) then he will have to change the way Mediawiki adds headers and ask the bot operator of the bot adding spaces in headers (I don't recall its name right now. Misabot?) to at least doing it. Many of us do small edits but these edits aim to a certain target: At some point 99.9% of the pages will have our style because there is a (clear) consensus for that. What Rich does with header spaces has no chance right now. OK, I know that some of you think that this is not the point of this discussion and the discussion but whatever. I don't agree with Rich ban and I have expressed that in many ways but on the other hand I can't just stay and see an endless edit war with no future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I agree with a lot of what you said Magio and my comments above were not directed at you so please don't feel they were. My point was only that its always the same 3 people complaining there is a problem with Rich's edits and having some experience in WP myself, I have learned that the real problems attract lots of people and comments so 3 editors with power saying someone is breaking a rule doesn't sit well with me. With that said I still think that bot, whatever it is, should be changed to leave whatever formatting is in the headers, spaces or not. Not applying its own standard with spaces. This is one of the sorts of things that Rich and others have gotten in trouble for so that bot should not be above reproach IMO. I also would like to note that although compromise is good, its not a one way street. Some of the minor edit police could learn to compromise a little too. Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
          • @Magioladitis: The problem we have before us is that Fram has been asked by multiple people to leave Rich alone. Fram has been told that if the problem is that serious, someone else will raise the issue with Rich. Rich has asked, in fact begged [7] for Fram to leave him alone. Yet, we have Fram being intractable and refusing to disengage. Both editors have their strengths and weaknesses. That's a given. As a project, we don't have to accept the drama/disruption being caused when these two editors interact. I have asked both editors to voluntarily agree to an interaction ban. With the diff I note above, Rich seems willing. But, a voluntary interaction ban can not work without both parties agreeing, and Fram refuses. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Of course Rich agrees, he can continue his editing with one person less to indicate where he violates guidelines time and time again. Perhaps we can propose an interaction ban between Rich and anyone who sees a problem with an edit he makes? Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Just so we are crystal clear; Fram, a number of people (including at least one administrator) are asking you to disengage and you are refusing. Is this correct? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
                • Just so we are crystal clear: Rich Farmbrough was restricted, blocked, desysopped, and nearly banned, but looking into his edits once every three months and noting problems with it is the actual problem here? As for "including at least one administrator", I love your hypocritical comments (again); I thought you believed that admins weren't that important, and that "The highest 'rank' on Wikipedia is 'editor'."? User talk:Kumioko#On being an admin. Having said that, the number of people are the usual suspects and Jenks24, who states that "this keeps popping up on my watchlist" despite the last post I made here before this thread being from 1 June 2012. An interaction ban was proposed by Rich farmbrough at the ArbCom case, but not imposed by ArbCom. What has happened since then to make things different now? A return after three months, while you (Hammersoft) have opposed my actions and comments multiple times in the meantime in different discussions? If there is any wikihounding happening, it is you who is wikihounding me. I don't mind you doing this, it tells more about you than that it causes problems for me, but it makes your current request for this interaction ban rather cynical. Fram (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
                  • If you believe I am wikihounding you, you are more than welcome to file a report to WP:AN/I. I am confident you can get me banned from the project. Now, to return to the point of this discussion rather than me; several editors have now asked you to disengage from Rich and walk away. Why is it impossible for you to do this? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban

Fram & Rich, I am asking you both to voluntarily agree to an interaction ban between the two of you. This means you stop posting to each other's talk pages, you stop following each other's edits, and you stop entering into discussions where you have no vested interest and the other party is involved. Please indicate your acceptance or refusal. If refusal, please indicate why. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I have asked for that multiple times in the past but Fram feels its his perosnal mission to be the minor edit police and refuses to drop the sticks and let it go. That's what makes me so angry about the whole situation is that here you have this Admin hounding another editor and no one can or will do anything about it. If it is such a major problem then why is it always the same 2 or 3 editors? If its a major problem with these edits he should have people lining up to complain. And we as editors and Wikipedians will complain if something bothers us. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No. If Rich doesn't want me posting here, he can just follow our policies and guidelines instead of continously ignoring and violating them, even after they have been pointed out and explained multiple times. If you two don't want me posting here, start mentoring Rich Farmbrough, try to get him to him follow our guidelines and policies, see to it that he edits like every editor is supposed to. And Kumioko, please drop the hyperbole. If it was such a major problem, we would be at ANI or at ArbCom enforcement. I am here because it is a real, recurring, but relatively minor problem, and because I am one of the editors who is aware that this is one established editor whose edits need scrutiny, though thanks to the restrictions less than it used to be. Closing my eyes and ignoring problems because I have noticed too many other similar problems in the past is not helping things. If I would have been consistenly (instead of occasionally) wrong in my remarks and in the errors, problems, or policy violations I pointed out, then there would be a case for an interaction ban. If I was opposing Rich Farmbrough at all kinds of discussions, just for the sake of it, then there would be a case for an interaction ban. But asking for an interaction ban just because I do what I am supposed to do, is not helpful in the least, and not very convincing coming from two heavily involved editors. Fram (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• If there is an editor who is heavily involved, it is you Fram. You are the #3 editor to this talk page. Look, you are not Rich's personal mentor. You are not an assigned police officer whose beat it is to follow Rich. You've been asked to drop the sticks and walk away, but apparently still feel it is your duty to police his actions. Why? Is there no other person on the project who can police his actions? Are you the sole person who has the time, tools, and willingness to police his actions? Why is it necessary that this falls to you? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No, I a not his mentor. But perhaps it would be better if one of you would be, instead of continuing with the same very tired defense. Like I said above, I would be more than happy if you (plural) took over and kept an eye on his contributions, and recognized the problems with it as well as the value. Perhaps you will have more success in getting him to change his habits without needing long discussions, blocks, ANI and ArbCom cases, restrictions, ... Continued shooting of the messenger has failed as a tactic every time until now, and hasn't helped Rich Farmbrough one bit. Trying something different instead might work, but I see very little willingness from either of you to try this. Fram (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Fram, I am not shooting you. Neither am I attempting some tired defense. Thank you. My point is you seem very focused on trying to change Rich, and unwilling to let go and walk away. If there is real damage occurring to the project, somebody else will step forward to address the issue. This does not require you. As Jenks24 notes below, it is time to disengage. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• +1. I've tried not to comment here recently, but this keeps popping up on my watchlist. Fram, please disengage. You're doing more harm than good and there are literally thousands of other areas of the project where your time would be better spent. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
• Just as a point of order, I want to make sure everyone here is aware that a user talk page discussion like this cannot compel something like an interaction ban. One can certainly be suggested, and if the parties agree to it implemented (because if they both agree to lay off, no need to get community approval for it), but if the party or parties don't agree here, if you want to try to compel such a ban you'll need to take it to AN(I). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I offered this solution years ago, I have begged, implored, requested, cajoled, encouraged, even become slightly incivil in my attempts to persuade Fram to disengage. And he has been asked by numerous people, in this and at least one other of his long running series of disputes all with the same author. I don't think anything will persuade him which is why I have given up trying. If however, someone else thinks he will listen to reason, they are certainly welcome to try. And of course should he give such an undertaking he is a perfect liberty to break it at any time, it is not binding - even within Wikipedia we tend to elevate our "decisions" far beyond any reason, as if we were playing a gigantic game of gnomic. Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC).
    
    • "Slightly incivil"? That's a mild understatement. "Numerous people" are those same three or so people turning a blind eye to problems that have seen one person banned and one de-adminned, restricted and nearly banned? Yep, I think I should really listen to their requests, they obviously defend our policies and guidelines in an impartial manner and represent community consensus. Or not. Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I come back to this page after several months of absence and it seems that there is a time-warp here. The same editor (um, admin) is still getting amazingly upset at Rich performing some very inconsequential edits. He objected, with some good reason, when Rich was making these changes in isolation. But now, it seems he's still complaining even though the inconsequential changes are now made in isolation of minor or significant edits. It seems clear to me now that there is something very personal and unhealthy about this interaction now. Both editors are amazingly good at what they do, except for their incessant feuding. I can understand how Rich feels like he's been continually hounded and harassed. Fram, please leave Rich alone. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Continually? Perhaps, if you come back after several months ofabsence, you should check first whether something has happened in your absence "continually", "occasionally", or "not at all". Secondly, I don't get "amazingly upset", I'm rather calm. I object to these edits no matter if they are made in isolation or not, they violate our MOS. While a number of interfering editors are making a fuss of this, Rich Farmbrough has changed his editing in this regard and is no longer changing the whitespace in headers, apart from a case where it was unbalanced (space at the front, not at the end) and where he was quite right to change it. The problem is that other people feel the need to turn this into a major thing, when if they would have left well alone, this would have been a very short and productive discussion; I remark on a problem in his edits, and he changes the way he edits. End of story. And considering this, I'll drop out of this totally unproductive meta-discussion, so that people's watchlist can cool off again. Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Get it right. We are talking about edits nobody cares about one way or another, except you. We're not the ones climbing the Reichstag. "interfering editors are making a fuss". The hell it's not personal. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 09:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
          • @Fram; There would not be a "major" thing if you had dropped the stick and walked away, as a number of editors have asked you to do now. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Note

It has always seemed to me that there is a distinction between someone saying that something is a problem because it has caused them difficulties, and someone saying something is a problem because "it is". It has also seemed that there is a distinction in motivation between someone who happens across an edit and makes a query about it, compared with someone who inspects an editor's work looking for something to complain about, and then issues instructions. The fact that the complainant is wrong is really not too important. The basic problem is one of social ineptitude, in considering that it is either wise, useful or collegial to pursue this line.

While I am, for example, quite aware of what Fram is doing on Wikipedia, I deem it wise to let others deal with it at present, as they probably will in due course. This seems to me eminently sensible. Rich Farmbrough, 14:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

Considering that ignoring your (and your bots) edits lead to hundreds of errors staying on Wikipedia for months, it doesn't seem unreasonable to keep a closer eye on your edits once I was aware that they regularly were problematic.

Anyway, I just checked, and before this section, my last post here was on June 1, i.e. over 3 months ago. Does put the problems of my "wikihounding" into perspective. On the other hand, between June 1st and now, Hammersoft has entered discussions after or because I was there, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#User:Fram refusing to stop mass category creation while RfC is going onWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758#User:Alan Liefting again, and the Encyclopetey arbcom case. Practice what you preach? Fram (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Top ten albums for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Top ten albums is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top ten albums until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ext links as file names

Could you restart the process (or ask someone else to restart it, if applicable) that you used to whittle down the User:Rich Farmbrough/temp1000 list? A lot of the members of Category:Articles with missing files are "missing" them only because of coding that automatically supplies "File:", thus breaking links because the images aren't entitled "File:File:". I've fixed one as an example. Seems to me that a bot, regardless of who runs it (are you now allowed to again? It seemed so, from your comments at the BOTR section), could easily check pages in the category to see which images would work properly if "File:" were removed. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not allowed, once upon a time I would have assumed that, this being Wikipedia, no one would really care as long as I wasn't breaking anything. This seems to be an outdated social model (the waterhole is poisoned, or, if you prefer, the first mover advantage benefits the less desirable attitudes).

The issue you highlight is slightly confounded in that some templates may add File: and some may not, I haven't checked but I believe this is the case. Nonetheless it is worth producing a list and seeing how many items we get, then fixing them. Ideally the template code would handle both formats, come Lua that may be a realistic proposition.

I will let you know how this progresses.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC).

Beriev Be-30 is an example. Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC).

Don't understand how the Beriev Be-30 is an example of this, since the only broken image was in freestanding code; I'm talking about situations such as the "fixed one" link that I gave. I'm just looking for situations in which the system supplies the "File:" prefix but in which someone nevertheless types it, causing improper duplication. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's an example where "= File: " is actually correct. In this case

|image=File:Aeroflot Beriev Be-32.jpg

Rich Farmbrough, 09:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC).

• I picked up 37 items, all should be fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC).
  

AWB bot request for Guyana

Please advise me on what is likely to happen to Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#AWB bot request for Guyana.

I have been working with another editor, improving the coverage of Guyana in a variety of ways, and now I am looking for some automated help on the templates. Early on I added a somewhat inadequate template, and have realized that a better one should be used. If this request works out, then I will be going on to more complicated ones. I changed the {{photoreq|in=Guyana}} to {{photoreq|people of Guyana}} by hand, because there were so few of them. I never did run that setup you provided for doing that kind of change for Texas.

I am sure you are enjoying your Wikipedia Editor hat. I keep hoping that mine will allow me to recruit a new editor, but so far no luck. If I converse with someone about it and they decide not to go forward even though they admit that the use it frequently, I do suggest that they donate. User Smallbones and I may organize an event here in Philadelphia, but for my own part, not likely before November 7. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I was of course delighted with the hat! As far as the bot request goes, they seem to be picked up in waves, and ignored in waves. It was indeed trying to clear this backlog that caused a little local difficulty. Nonetheless this is a simple request, and if someone does not pick it up before it archives, I suggest you simply re-submit it. Alternatively I could put together an AWB setting s file for you. Rich Farmbrough, 15:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

Let's just wait a few days, and if I don't get a response, I will come back to you. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 49#AWB bot request for Guyana means that they archived my request without any response. It may be a simple request, so you can provide a settings file and whatever else I need to know to make it go on AWB. We can do it for Guyana, and then I will go on to Suriname and maybe elsewhere. I appreciate your help. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@Rich: I would be extremely careful in proceeding with this. You know full well the lynch mob is waiting right outside your wikipedia-door ready to have you banned from the site for good. They previously sanctioned you because they thought two edits constituted automation. The extreme obtuseness demonstrated by this should be enough to convince you they will find a way to sanction you for creating an AWB settings file that someone else runs as a proxy for you. I would specifically, and directly, ask ArbCom permission to move forward on this. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rich, I am going to repeat my request officially. Thanks for your offer, but it is better that I pursue this with the official channels. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook

• WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force

• Featured content: Go into the light

• News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced

• Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Occupy movement in Armenia

Category:Occupy movement in Armenia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello Rich Farmbrough; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

New dated category

Please see Category:Articles needing POV-check, which I created after a discussion on Template_talk:POV-check#Category_split_from_Disputed.3F. The structure might need some work to add the relevant monthly categories. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Pre-arbcom this would have been automatic of course. Rich Farmbrough, 21:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC).

Differentiating reference syntax in the editing window

Hi Rich-- based on the village pump discussion on giving reference syntax a unique color to differentiate from other text while editing, I've opened up an RfC to expand the audience on the topic. You are welcome to participate anytime. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

cheers

Thanks for edits in my article, I appreciate that. I also made some minor changes, removed a words such "dr", "honorable" any that contradicts to be encyclopedic. Any more suggestions regarding that? Cheers, Sausa (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed there are three bare link references

• http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/2011-03-31-07-00-04/11115-qarthvelebi-uckhoethshi-msoflio-toppianistebis-siashi-shesuli-qarthveli-pianisti-romis-papma-vatikanshi-miitsvia.html

for example. They can be improved, ideally (in my opinion) by using a cite template such as {{Cite web}}. Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. Sorry, a bit lost here. So, for example, this source: http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/2011-03-31-07-00-04/11115-qarthvelebi-uckhoethshi-msoflio-toppianistebis-siashi-shesuli-qarthveli-pianisti-romis-papma-vatikanshi-miitsvia.html do I need to put it in this way and leave it just like that?: http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/2011-03-31-07-00-04/11115-qarthvelebi-uckhoethshi-msoflio-toppianistebis-siashi-shesuli-qarthveli-pianisti-romis-papma-vatikanshi-miitsvia.html I am sorry if I misunderstand you, would appreciate very much if you explain me more. Cheers, Sausa (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, something like

{{Cite web|url=http://www.kvirispalitra.ge/2011-03-31-07-00-04/11115-qarthvelebi-uckhoethshi-msoflio-toppianistebis-siashi-shesuli-qarthveli-pianisti-romis-papma-vatikanshi-miitsvia.html|title=ქართველები უცხოეთში. მსოფლიო ტოპპიანისტების სიაში შესული ქართველი პიანისტი რომის პაპმა ვატიკანში მიიწვია |author= |date=2012-02-02|accessdate=2012-09-22}} {{In lang|ka}} which will show as
"ქართველები უცხოეთში. მსოფლიო ტოპპიანისტების სიაში შესული ქართველი პიანისტი რომის პაპმა ვატიკანში მიიწვია". 2012-02-02. Retrieved 2012-09-22. (in Georgian)

Rich Farmbrough, 17:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC).

Awesome!!! Will do. Thanks! Sausa (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Purple star for Helpful Pixie Bot

I gave you're Helpful Pixie Bot a Purple star. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! The bot deserves it. Rich Farmbrough, 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC).

You've got mail

Hello, Rich Farmbrough/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Bots.
Message added 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Rcsprinter (babble) @ 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here. Progress so far Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner. Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes. Proposed changes Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN. Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum. Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum. Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee. Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise. Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired? 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute. It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent. If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors). The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?". Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired. Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline. Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time. 3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for taking care of that while I was off working. I do get the occasional malicious stalker. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Borderline username?

Since you're already working to defuse the drama, I was wondering -- is that username OK? I thought it might have been an coincidence until I saw the first entry on their block log. I realize that this isn't de.wikipedia which has much stronger rules on this, but still seems rather off-color. a13ean (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm, the fennec is a very popular animal to identify with. The choice of name is perhaps ill advised, but I don't think it is against policy. Rich Farmbrough, 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC).

Ok, thanks. a13ean (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

• In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention

• Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012

• WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011

• News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal

• Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times

• Featured content: Dead as...

• Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons category

Hi, earlier this year you set up Category:Commons category template with no category set as a result of a discussion over problems with page moves. I was working through the articles in the category and a user has queried this indicating there was no consensus for routinely adding the article name (see here). Can you remember where the discussion was that started this? Thanks Keith D (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably Requests for Bot Work. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. Keith D (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)