User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2009 July

Dear Smackbot sir, I think the article, Aurangabad, Maharashtra apart from the maintainance tag requires a morefootnotes tag, since there are hardly any references or sources mentioned in the article. Please do the needful. Nefirious (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can add this tag if you think it is needed. Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

I added some maint tags to an article on July 1 here in New Zealand. SmackBot changed the date to June. I guess it works on server time. Can you set up the bot so that it does not alter dates that are less than 12-24 hrs before the server time? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well it should work on UTC, but due to a bug in mediawiki I have to hard code it. That means I regenerate the regular expressions every month. It doesn't greatly matter if things are pushed forward or back by a day, or, to be honest even if they are in completely the wrong month, the important thing is that the tagging should mean they will not be left indefinitely. (It works well for uncategorized, for example.) Th reason your article was picked up was probably that the dated cat didn't exist. Rich Farmbrough, 11:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

SmackBot converts following wiki code

<ul>
<li> item 1
     <p> blah-blah-blah
<li> item 2
</ul>

into

<ul>
<li> item 1

blah-blah-blah


<li> item 2
</ul>

Which renders differently in a browser:

• item 1

  blah-blah-blah

• item 2

versus

• item 1 blah-blah-blah
• item 2

// Stpasha (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hm, tricky.

You could look at using

* item 1 <br> blah-blah-blah
* item 2

• item 1
  blah-blah-blah
• item 2

or

* item 1 
:blah-blah-blah
* item 2

• item 1

blah-blah-blah

• item 2

Rich Farmbrough, 07:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

You do realize you broke a ton of redirects with your move of Template:Infobox officeholder, right? You're supposed to fix them when you do things like that. john k (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

look at my contribsRich Farmbrough, 19:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Ah...sorry, should have done that beforehand. I just happened to load up a bunch before you fixed them. It seems kind of like a massive waste of your time, though - who cares if a template page is named inappropriately? john k (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Takes a few moments, the reason is that if we are using a more or less standard scheme we don't have to remember the capitalisation of names of templates, whether they are joined by spaces, CamelCase dashes, etc.. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

You missed the one for mayor. I tried to fix it, but it's locked from editing. Paxsimius (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, fixed. It had the underscore in the name. Rich Farmbrough, 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

for retraining Smackbot regarding the citation-needed template - please feel appreciated Sssoul (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

What was the point of your edits today to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month? Debresser (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

That was necessary because not all categories were created in time? Debresser (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would have changed Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month/cat to {{#time:F Y|+25 day}} for a few minutes and then change it back. I think that is preferrable to making 2 lists. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point. Ideally, of course, somebody should create all categories in time. Debresser (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rich,

I was wondering if you can help me write a Wiki Page. I am uneducated in the whole Wiki editing process.

I'd like to send you a bio and references for the article. The article is already written but of course I understand your editing magic will be necessary.

How do I send you the article request ? My email is: hiltonboy1560@aol.com

Please email me and I will send you the article to review, to see if you may be interested in helping. It is a short Wiki article. Nothing major.

Thanks ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioMediaCorp (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am new to wiki. I created this page. There are sources sited in this article so I am not sure why this is being tagged for deletion. Would renaming help?

Tomatoproducts (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)lhsReply

(user Tomatoproducts)

Archive please Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Dear Rich,

Please advice. With several persons involved in creating organizing and sailing the event "2008 Vintage Yachting Games" we created this page and put references to sides of all involved authorities. Wat do we need to do to have the correct references so that the article will not be deleted. Please give us some advice/exapmples in relevans to the article involved. We are open for your advice and ready to learn from you but have no clue at this moment wat we are missing her.

Thanks in advance

Rudy den Outer (rudy.den.outer@quicknet.nl) 84.105.17.54 (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is unlikely to be deleted. The (a) preferred way of citing references in WP is inline like this^[1]. You can re-use references like this^[2] then again,^[2] and a third time.^[2]

The references will appear where you place this code

Of course inline is not necessarily appropriate for every article. Rich Farmbrough, 03:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Hi, the SmackBot keeps adding a References section to the template:Current Men's Singles ATP Rankings, which causes some problems, as it makes the section appear in the middle of the articles where the template is used (as in 2009 ATP World Tour or Association of Tennis Professionals). I've reverted the Bot once, but it came back with the same edit a couple of days later. What do you think can be done ? --Don Lope (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have noincluded the references list. Rich Farmbrough, 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Of course. I should have thought of that. Thanks ! --Don Lope (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!!Hey buddy wassup!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.121.170 (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if this is a recurring problem, but with this edit, SmackBot added {{reflist}} and a references section to a template. This seems undesirable? Or at least wrap them in noincludes? → ROUX ₪ 07:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes they should be there noincluded, but I have to do that manually. Rich Farmbrough, 10:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Please see my edit there. I would recommend for SmackBot to start using {{Templaterefsection}} in all templates, together with <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Shouldn't be hard to program. Debresser (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

'Tis done. Rich Farmbrough, 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Well done. Although, as the person who invented the name "templaterefsection" I was not thrilled by your rename. It is awfully long. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rich - I would like to request that you review an article which you flagged as an "orphan" a few months ago. I have been doing more research to gather more information before adding any more information about the company in reference. The link is: PPC worldwide. Please let me know if you have any further recommendations for this article. Thanks! Kruegsj (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you reverted a edit changing the church of scientology to cult of scientology?! i see that there are a lot of errors refering to the cult as a church and YOU ARE NOT HELPING!?!?! I will have to contact the owner of winkapedia if you continue abusing your ability to revert good edits.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.177.76 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

See this edit; the chance in capitalisation SmackBot made to the defaultsort was incorrect. I've reverted, but the bot shouldn't be doing that. PC78 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hm I think it should. It's part of WP:AWB general fices adn therse guys generally know what they are doing. Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

The capitalisation should match the article title. Can you throw me a more useful link? PC78 (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here might help. The goal is to get an effectively case insensitive sort. The name displayed in the category, is of course, the article name, regardless of the sort order. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Hi Rich, I have a couple of requests about your changes to articles with the French commune template (for example this change).

1. Could you also change the name of the template itself from "French commune" to "Infobox French commune"?
2. Change the "departement" parameter name to "department"?

Regards, Kiwipete (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Hello Farmbrough,

It's possible to don't put again the cleanup and others box on top in the article because all article for the refineries in Canada and oil refining center are in construction. When you put that, i supposed you are against my articles.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredoues (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would like to be able to cite and confirm notability to the page John Mann(comedian) but I do not know how. Could you either help me to or remove the Bot of Smack. You are lovely. Cheery24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheery24 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Template:Cleanup-list-sort Debresser (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I got a question here, plz help. I found that you had changed the information of Waste Management, Inc(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Management,_Inc.). Do you know whether the company have office in China? If have, could you help me to find out how to connect them (their phone number or address in china)? It'll help me a lot. Sorry for bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.13.84.106 (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea but it looks unlikely. You could ask the US business attaché in China, or email the company and ask. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

I will email them. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.13.84.106 (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rich (alias smackbot) - thanks for giving my entry a reference at Nuclear propulsion. I was trying to do so earlier today (many hours ago) and I couldn't get the reference to work. It wasn't reading the tags or something, at the time. Anyway, thanks. Ti-30X (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that I haven't been available to assign tasks lately. For the past 3 days (not including today) I've been almost totally consumed in discussions concerning the location and very existence of outlines. Today I finally broke free and got back to work on outlines. Felt good.

A great deal has been happening with outlines and behind the scenes. I just don't have time to tell you all about it this time around. Here's the best I can do...

How to watch what's going on with outlines

If you'd like a bird's eye view of everything that's happening with respect to outlines, see this page:

• WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.

Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):

• WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
• WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
• WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.

Recently converted to outlines

These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format:

• Outline of martial arts (was "List of martial arts-related topics")
• Outline of wine - converted by Stefan (was called "List of wine-related topics")
• Outline of the creation-evolution controversy (was "List of topics in the creation-evolution controversy")
• Outline of actuarial science (was "Actuarial topics")
• Outline of industrial organization (was "List of topics in industrial organization")

Recently merged into outlines

There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following one have been recently merged:

• List of finance topics into Outline of finance

The Transhumanist 01:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

That smakbot is quite a useful tool. It really comes in handy. Ti-30X (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here is my list of outlines, and scientists - these seem to be working well for Wikipeida: Ti-30X (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

See: The Wikipedia
Outline of Knowledge for Mathematics,
Logic, Natural and Physical Sciences

• Leon Lederman, Nobel laureate, Partical physics
• Murray Gell-Mann, Nobel laureate, Partical physics
• The late Henry Kendall, Nobel laureate, Partical physics
• Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate, Quantum field theory
• David Gross, Nobel laureate, Paritcle physics
• Frank Wilczek, Nobel laureate, Theoretical physicist
• Joseph Rotblat, Nobel laureate, Nuclear fission
• Walter Gilbert, Nobel laureate, Particle physicist, Molecular biology
• Gerald Edelman, Nobel laureate, Immune system, Neuroscience
• Peter Doherty, Nobel laureate, Immune system
• Jared Diamond, Nobel laureate, Anthropology, Physiology,Geography
• Brian Greene, PhD, String theory, Cosmology, Mirror Symmetry
• Lisa Randall, PhD, Particle physics, Cosmology, expert in String theory
• Lawrence Krauss, PhD, Physics, Space Exploration, Mathematics
• Alan Guth, PhD, Theoretical physicist, Originated Cosmic Inflation 1979
• John D. Barrow, PhD, Cosmologist, Theoretical physicist, Mathematician
• Joseph Lykken, PhD, Theory of Particle physics, Dark matter
• Leonard Susskind, PhD, Quantum field theory, co-founder of String theory
• Marvin Minsky, PhD, Artifical Intelligence
• Paul Davies, PhD, Quantum field theory in curved spacetime, theoretical physics, astrobiology. Produced 20 topical physics books
• Ray Kurzwell, BS, a pioneer in the fields of optical character recognition (OCR), text-to-speech synthesis, the technology of speech recognition, and electronic keyboard instruments. Authored several books on health, Artificial intelligence (AI), transhumanism, the technological singularity, and futures studies.
• Rodney Brooks, PhD, Robotics, Artificial intelligence, Computer Science
• Neil de Grasse Tyson, PhD, Physics, famous Astrophysicist, President of the Planetary Society. Authored 11 topical Astronomy books.

See: The Wikipedia
Outline of Knowledge
The History of Science

Hi Rich: Some time ago you made comments about the above referenced article that had several templates added by two users with a history of negative edits. Would you be so kind as to take another look at the text, citations, and templates and share your views at the talk page of David Ferguson (impresario)? There is also a discussion at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, however I have posted a request to move to the article's talk page; anything you could add to the discussion would be most appreciated. Thank you. --deb (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear sir, you have by mistake placed the additional references tag twice in the article Aurangabad, Maharashtra. It may be of appropriate for you to remove it or let me remove the same for you. 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If a tag is wrong you can remove it. Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Greetings Rich,

I'd just like to bring to your attention that, on some of the tennis articles, a certain user has been deleting the names of French (Roland Garros) champions, and changing the founding date of the championship. Even though outside sources, such as:

1. ESPN 2. Encylopedia Britannica 3. the Roland Garros website 4. the World Almanac

have supported the inclusion of all French Open winners to 1891, a single solitary user has been deleting the names of pre-1925 champions because it was "not open to international competition"--but that's a lie. The very first winner, in 1891, was a British man, and two other British men made it to the final in the 1890s.

Attempting to rewrite history with Wikipedia is what some people have done, rather than understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

What do you think I should do next? User Fyunclick has refused to compromise or discuss the issue rationally.Ryoung122 00:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

A lot of views other than humans ? That was sarcastically said. Anyway, thanks for contributing and improving the article. Nefirious (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

It's probably not worth stopping the bot over either, but look how it mangled the second reported dead link on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcohol_rub&diff=301597414&oldid=301594779

Bad bot. Naughty ;)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.198 (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply 

Well, I take it back. The links were naughty not the bot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.162 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Template:Formula missing descriptions Debresser (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have been watching the article BosWash for two years. It and the associated articles ChiPitts and SanSan concern the concept of a theoretical entity known as a Megalopolis. The talk page discussion Talk:BosWash#Isn't this kind of melodramatic? sums up the disputes I and another editor have with the form and content the article has taken on. My major problem with all three articles is that although the subject and title do exist as part of a theory published by Jean Gottmann in 1961, the articles themselves treat the three terms, BosWash, ChiPitts and SanSan as actual physical locations with real boundaries and constituent geographical members. Not only is this not true, it is unencyclopedic and supported only by original research that masquerades as fact within each article. I would like to place a {{Disputed}} tag on each article. The documentation for the tag directs that a new section called "Disputed" be added to the article's talk page. I have two questions about how to proceed: in your opinion, is my proposed placement of the tag for these three articles warranted? and if so what is the best way to include the statements already made on the BosWash talk page within a new "Disputed" section, can they simply be copied into the section, and how can the discussion of all three pages be centralized? Sswonk (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure the "Disputed" tag will add any value - we already know there's a dispute (or multiple disputes), the question is what are we going to do about it and who is going to support that. The talk pages for the articles are entirely about these disputes already.

You might want to also look at the Megapolitan article. I didn't create that article but have edited and added to it. It is mostly about one team's research, but the material is cited to them. I think it would be good to follow and compare different authors' varying ideas of a given American megalopolis through time within a single article.

The city lists in each article are chronic problems. I think we just have to continue efforts to trim or eliminate them unless they are based on cited material. I've also considered adding a request not to add detailed original city lists, but am not sure whether some might consider the request itself to be unencyclopedic. If we can cite different definitions from more than one author, this will also get across the message that there is no single definition the article is endorsing. --JWB (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think what I am looking for is some sort of visual clue, like appears at the top of essay pages that are not official Wikipedia policy, that states in so many words that these terms are not actual places, that the articles are a mess that are being edited in support of a pseudo-scientific concept, that the terms are not in use by the people that actually live there, and that we are attempting to remedy this situation. The simplest remedy would be to have the articles reduced to stub status, defining their titles as terms used by Gottmann, and then eliminating any of the lists of cities and so on. People are throwing names and images in that they could easily provide citation for, but unless the citation says "Boswash includes this place" it is Original Research. It irritates me to no end that these articles add legitimacy to a neologism that is almost 50 years old simply by having them and numerous mirrors of them appear in Google search results. It is SEO results population for a flawed concept. "Boswash" doesn't exist, regardless of what this article says, and that puts us in the business of providing inaccurate information. I guess I could throw {{fact}} tags all over it, but I would really like someone in authority to do what is really necessary, that being start the articles over from scratch. Sswonk (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why do you have User:SmackBot/References Log added to Category:Pages with missing references list? Debresser (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I find this even more strange in view of the fact that User:SmackBot/References Log is already linked on that category page. Unless there is some special, technical reason, I propose to remove that category. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can't you find a more elegant solution? :) Debresser (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Undo Page Redirection. –xeno^talk 14:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rich,

I need your help. I've been accessing Wikipedia from a library computer, which leaves me unable to do anything really fancy.

I was hoping you could update the following page for me:

• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits

The instructions are here:

• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/How to generate the lists.

I plan to use the list to contact prolific editors in various subject areas or who do a lot of particular types of edits.

It would also be nice to see who is active on Wikipedia this summer.

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the reply. WPinas by number of edits includes inactive editors. The above list only covers edits for the past 30 days. The Transhumanist 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. The Transhumanist 20:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, an article that has been written has been vandalised and I have tried to delete the vandalism, but your bot (and I dont quite understand how they work) is being used to reverse the edits that are trying to take the article back to the original. IE someone is subscribing ( if that is the phrase) to your bot so that my corrections back to the original are seen as vandalism. How do I stop that? IE your bot is creating the vandalism and my corrections are seen as vandalism. I am not sure that this what your bot was set up to do. I am sure you are asking who is the vandal and who is the corrector? Given the vandal will read this i can provide details of the article by secure email if required. What do I do? Many thanks Goalcatcher (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just give me the name of the article. The chances are that there is something in the WP Manual of Style you are unaware of, but it could be that the bot is making a mistake. Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Hi, the article is 'AnneMain', there are political opponents that are vandalising various MPs sites by placing political statements on them in the light of the expenses issues in the UK. You will see how your bot is being used. thanks

Anne Main I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

OK nothing to do with the bot some IP removed the stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Hi Rich, I must have been ambiguos. There are political activists putting political statements on many MPs wikis regarding the expenses - so instead of a factual entry regarding the MP and their position it becomes a political noticeboard whihc is not what Wike is about., you ironically replaced what was required to be removed. :-) So the IP that has just removed what you put back (at c. 9:05 am UK time) is valid. You will see on many other UK MPs the same issues, people are just making political capital of these expense issues. I hope that I have explained correctly.The reason i contacted you was that one of the edits stated in the history was Smartbot and I just thought it must be one of these activists using your bot to automatically replace their vandalism when someone removed their vandalism. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalcatcher (talk • contribs) 08:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you were ambiguous, you didn't state which was the "right version"! The expenses scandal is noteworthy, being a significant step in the process of changing the financial accountability of UK MPs. To remove well sourced information seems like using WP to push your own political viewpoint. The articles should remain factaul, NPPOV and well sourced. If there is a problem then I suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Rich Farmbrough, 08:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

I would counter your statement that the political points are being made to the original adder of the expense information. What about the positive stuff that is done by these people? Then wiki just becomes a political noticeboard and not an encyclopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalcatcher (talk • contribs) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your temp16 file should serve my purposes just fine. Thank you!

By the way, out of curiosity, how do you manage 18,000 edits in a month!?

The Transhumanist 02:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just checking... The edit counts are for the past 30 days? The Transhumanist 16:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since (I'm assuming) you just downloaded Wikipedia, that reminds me of a wish I've had for a long time. Maybe you can grant it...

Can you make a new one of these: Wikipedia:List of base pages in the Wikipedia namespace?

(It's a copy of User:JesseW/WPindex. I contacted him with this request in 2007, but he never responded.)

It would be much better than the Special:AllPages index of the Wikipedia namespace, because that is choked with thousands upon thousands of AFD subpages, ANI archives, etc.

Such a page will allow us to actually see what's currently in the Wikipedia namespace, and it will be instrumental in updating pages like most of these:

And for updating the Help system, as there are a great many help pages in the Wikipedia namespace.

I'll make sure a link to it gets posted in all the right places.

The Transhumanist 17:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you have the templates I added today in Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates? Debresser (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that SmackBot edited the WGBH idents. There are lots of variants on the announcer and the logos. should i put them in the WGBH idents article itself or a seperate article. Meteorman7228 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest the logos might go in a gallery in the article. Not sure what you mean by variants in the announcer. Rich Farmbrough, 06:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

The manual of style says "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes, articles, or leading zeros" for dates, but in this edit, SmackBot changed the date 2009-07-1 to 2009-07-01. I guess if no leading zeros are to be used, then the correct fix would have been to change 2009-07-1 to 2009-7-1? —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

well look a few lines down, where it talks about YYYY-MM-DD format, leading zeros are used there, and for good reason. With the leading zeros the format is date sortable. Rich Farmbrough, 06:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Can you please remove this text "Ted Sycamore 10:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)" at the start of the CAIRO GANG article. I made an edit and this appeared. It was clearly not intended to appear there. Ted Sycamore 11:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Sycamore (talk • contribs)   Done Rich Farmbrough, 15:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Thank you for the visit. I have "un-orphaned" this entry and request that the orphan tag be removed. If there is anything else you would like updated prior to removing the tag, please advise...thanks a bunchDocbb1 (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks for the follow up.  I have removed the tag, as there are now relevant wikis tagging this article.Docbb1 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice to meet you. Just curious, Are you human? Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

wow. i first know SmackBot is a human. anyway, thanks to know it. Cherry Blossom OK (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you have {{Prune}}? Debresser (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I hope you also saw the other ones from my previous posts. They're still on this talkpage. Please have a look at User_talk:Debresser#Prune. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes I already have those. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 12:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

I am afraid that the table on demographics in the article is mis-formated in a way that distorts all the subsequent text. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about tables to fix the problem. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed, underlying problem was fixed earlier but I must have missed this one. Should you see any others just undo my edit(s) and drop a note and I will take care of them. 79.79.20.228 (talk)

Argh I broke it again... Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Thanks. I am reluctant to undo edits when only part of an edit is broken. I would have fixed the problem myself, had I known what to do. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Normally I agree with moving templates to more normal English titles, but in this case the term howto is idiomatic. As that article suggests, maybe {{how-to}} would be a suitable title; however, that might need discussed first. For now I've reverted the page move. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Rich, just noticed (again) that there has been a tag since 2007 on this article. I went in the history to see who applied it, but maybe I missed something, so decided to write my favorite admin instead :). Could you peruse and see if the tag is still needed. If not, maybe you could remove it. If so, maybe you could give some idea of what types of changes need to be made in the discussion section. This article had been cited as excellent by a prof at WVU and I hate the idea that any traffic he drives to the article sees this tag. Thanks, as always. Cheers --Beth Wellington (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oops. I just realized there were no citations in the the initial part. I'm working on it. Do you know anyone else who can help me?--Beth Wellington (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

How do I remove speedy deletion from MarketResearch.com?

Rich, Someone in our organization brought to my attention the notice, or banner, [This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (July 2009)] on our Wikipedia site. Can you give me more info, or, more specifically, what should we fdix to meet Wiukipedia's criteria? I'm the STRATCOM Manager for the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.149.1.36 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this has been dealt with. Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Thanks for your note on the article I wrote. It really helped me understand where I could make improvements. SportsReport 20:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsReport (talk • contribs)

Hi Rich.

At 03:32 on 17 July 2009, you edited the article Nantes, with the comment 'clean up using AWB'. Most of the changes were minor, like capitalising the first letters of various templates, and removing spaces in section titles.

But unfortunately one set of changes, that moved the | from one line to another around valign statements, completely broke the presentation of some in-text tabulations, resulting in the valigns appearing as text in the article. I have reverted this and all subsequent changes, and am in the process of rather laboriously reapplying those subsequent changes.

These things happen, but I just thought you would like to know, as this may indicate a bug in the tool you are using, which may affect other articles.

-- Starbois (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I reverted this edit you made with AWB. Hope you don't mind ;) Kiwipete (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

How very odd! But I did get an odd error yesterday. Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 05:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Hi, seeking support to keep regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Epping murders. Do you have an opinion on that? Thanks Ajayvius (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Look at Roland Burris or Carol Moseley Braun for example. They all end up with 1. REDIRECT Template:Infobox officeholder at the top. From the other officeholders I saw, they *all* were affected.

Archive please Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

• It seems that the changes you're making to French communes are all insignificant changes per AWB, i.e., there is no visual effect to the reader; you're just shuffling around some code. –xeno^talk 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Is there a point to these changes? You're essentially fixing redirects which aren't broken and adding some whitespace. Shouldn't these changes be done along with something more significant, like typo fixing? And, if you're running this as an automated task (as I doubt you're sitting there manually clicking), shouldn't you run it through BRFA? –xeno^talk 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

• What a monumental waste of resources. I should block this account as an unapproved bot operating contrary to AWB's rules of use, but since you're almost done deprecating the redirect, I'm just going to leave you to it. –xeno^talk 14:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hm no I'm also replacing the French names of the parameters with the English names. Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

  Yes, with no visual effect to the reader. Why? And if it's necessary and has consensus, why not run it through BRFA rather than running a bot on your main account? Please just continue as you were, you've got less than a thousand to go. But this was a giant waste (imo), or it should've been run as a bot task. (Too bad I didn't realize this was desired, as Xenobot recently hit most of these articles for more significant edits) –xeno^talk 14:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why did this bot remove the "more footnotes" tag at the start of the article here ? Hohum (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It moved it to the references section. Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Aah, I see that now. The diff view I was using didn't show it. Hohum (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi I was wondering if you could AWB or whatever you have to cleanup this list, remove the gaps and wikilink the names? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Rich,

I found several strange edits you made with AWB: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Do you know how this could have happened? Korg (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suspect AWB was gettign confused. I can check for any more like this, I think. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

No problem, and thanks in advance for checking them! Another error I found is the replacement of the infobox parameter "cp" with "postal code" instead of "postal_code", causing the INSEE and postal codes to no longer be displayed: [9], [10]. Korg (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also dealt with. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

Thank you! Korg (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I found other buggy edits: [11], [12], [13], [14]. I just checked some of your contributions manually, and I probably have missed others. Could you please check them again? Alternatively, do you know an efficient way to spot the edits that need to be reverted? I'd like to ensure that no others remain. Thanks, Korg (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes I scanned all commune articles for ones that don't contain their own name, and went through them, I have now done another scan for articles that don't contain their own name either bolded or as an interwiki. There are about 400 of these, most should be false positives. The full list is here. The current list User:Rich Farmbrough/temp17. Most of these will already have been checked. Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

In this edit, SmackBot puts the dablink below the maintenance tags. Is this intentional? According to WP:LAYOUT, dablinks should go first. Iceblock (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I sould say htis is arguable, so perhaps it was argued and the WP:AWB implementers put the previous version. I will look later. Rich Farmbrough, 12:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC).Reply