User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2013 June

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 ·

ISBN 0-596-00027-8 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ISBN 0-596-00027-8. Since you had some involvement with the ISBN 0-596-00027-8 redirect, you might want to participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 1#ISBN 0-596-00027-8|the redirect discussion]] (if you have not already done so). 108.56.232.165 (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undo button[edit]

Greetings Rich, you need to be more careful with your edits. I noticed you used the undo button, some editors may constitute that as "using automation". :-) Seriously though, I hope things are going well for you these days. Kumioko (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coming from anyone else, like some of Rich's 'friends' watching this page and every move Rich makes, the above comment could be construed as either a warning as a prelude to ANI or taking the piss. Of course I know you better than that. Personal computers have changed the world by allowing things to be done much, much faster than purely by the human hand. I guess one might call that invention "automation" in itself, never mind what humans use it for afterwards. ;-) Have a good one! -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was of course meaning my comment to be joking sarcasm. :-)Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who imposes sanctions on Rich for this undo should themselves be sanctioned, because it is not a crime to revert your own edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be a crime to do a lot of things around here. But I have seen some pretty outlandish decisions by Arbcom, AE and even individual editors that somehow don't get overturned. The vagueness of the sanction against Rich is where the crime lies where anything in the judgement of the admin can be construed as automation. Excel, cut and paste, twinkle, etc. have all been identified as automation. Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom was very specific in what types of edits Rich was forbidden to engage in, including cutting and pasting. There are many sad things about this situation. Rich's prolificity is lost to us for a year. But hopefully we can tap his expertise. After all, he still has this talk page. The Transhumanist 08:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, remind me again, was one of the problems that you were mass-creating Category talk: pages? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #61[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

A barnstar[edit]

The Purple Barnstar
Normally, I'm not a fan on giving out barnstars for "nothing much", but feel the description of this fits the case - "The Purple Barnstar is awarded to those who have endured undue hardship on Wikipedia but still remain resolute in their commitment to the project and its ideals." Mdann52 (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally feel jellous, wish I can get one of those, considering purple colour is my favourite!--Mishae (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance for people terrified of block[edit]

So, at this point, we need to know where to respond to an appeal against the one-year block, or is it some technical loophole to be overturned within a few hours of review? News of this "one-year block" is likely to terrify many other editors. I am an uninvolved editor who is willing to review this case. Meanwhile, I wanted to ask Rich his advice about methods to apply Lua script to massive improvements of Wikipedia, now that the system-wide feasibility of Lua-based templates been demonstrated. Rich's ideas have been instrumental in creating fast-cite markup templates which rival the speed of Lua script, but without the complexity. Anyway, long story short, we need to include Rich in discussions about writing Lua script modules to solve massive quality problems in Wikipedia data. This is not the time to block him, even for 48 hours. So, where do we respond to overturn this block decision? I suggest people repeat the "Hawthorne experiment" for improved productivity, rather than the Milgram experiment. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • My message above points out that—according to the block notice—this block be amended or overturned, "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page". Already several people have posted here supporting Rich. (A discussion has also started here). Surely nobody is perfect; admins. are human and so sometimes make errors. Maybe WP needs a paid full-time Ombudsman/lady who has the power to review overly-hasty admin. or community decisions and send them back for review. LittleBen (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I have spoken with several users who are afraid to even start a bot for fear of being banned. Some don't even want to edit right now. That's part of the reason I came back. A flurry of editors I talk to off wiki that don't like how this and other things are playing out. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikid77, Rich effectively got his indef enwiki site-ban a year ago. The deal agreed was that Rich could instead make pure-manual edits. Because it is effectively a suspended (delayed) sentence, I think it is likely to be harder to overturn. —Sladen (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed I should have fought that, but I was mortified by the two mis-clicks that caused it. Looking back I should have been far more robust in my own defence - this was really a very human error, which I would never have censured another editor for. Maybe you feel that two mis-clicks out of several hundreds was too many. Maybe you feel that ArbCom has (as they seemed to suggest) control over the reading as well as writing of Wikipedia. Currently this block is somewhat irrelevant while that restriction stands. Sandstein characterised insertion of a single character as automated - on that basis any editing is forbidden me. Somewhat strange that T.Canens should encourage blocking of an editor who has made an appeal to ArbCom, though. Perhaps he hadn't thought it through, or perhaps that will be the new modus operandi. Would you do that? I wouldn't. Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Welcome to the Socialist Republic of Wikipedia - The Encyclopedia anyone we like can edit as long as they only post what we tell them too, how we tell them too and when we tell them too!KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kumioko, per WP:CIVIL, I do not think this is appropriate. —Sladen (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot more uncivil things in Wikipedia every day done by admins and other editors than that comment. Like blocking an editor for a year for simple non automated edits, refusing to follow policies like Harassment, Article ownership, blocking editors due to COI, etc. If that comment seems uncivil then something needs to be done to fix the culture that embodies that comment rather than call me uncivil because it hurts some feelings. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rich, I do not think you should have fought it—I do not think it would have helped. It is the fighting that loses credibility. I regret to say, but I don't think it was merely two clicks. A few months after the automation ban was in place, and before things reared up again, I saw an edit involving removal of trailing whitespace (sequences of "\x20*\n"), but not the removal of trailing whitespace which was a mixture of tabs and spaces ("[\x20\t]*\n"). These are indistinguishable inside the browser textarea editor. I drew my conclusions at that point, and also kept quiet. Time took its course anyway. —Sladen (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that I am Rich's friend, I should mention that I agree with user Kumioko CleanStart on his comment about it being Socialist Republic, I should add that its actually worse than that, its actually Fascist Republic to be exact, pardon my French. I will fight for you Rich!!!!!!!!--23:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Another thing to mention, and please don't take it the wrong way any of you, I heard somewhere that Wikipedia was founded by liberals, which are socialists, to push their liberal ideas. Now, I am not saying it as either good or bad thing, just trying to get the point across.--Mishae (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

Merger proposal[edit]

Merge discussion for Martini: A Memoir[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Martini: A Memoir, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Rangasyd (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #62[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Oxford Meetup 6[edit]

Thank you for attending the fifth Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting you. I intended to send this message on Monday, but I've been a bit busy, sorry.

Several of us would like to continue with the monthly plan, since trying to make a two-monthly cycle fit into the University terms doesn't work very well. A page has been created about the sixth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetups are at: London, 16 June; Manchester, 22 June; and Coventry, 7 July. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was pointed out to me that 7 July 2013 collides with Coventry 8, who have a prior claim to the date. Since nobody has (yet) claimed 14 July for any UK meetups, I have decided that Oxford 6 should be held on 14 July 2013, and not 7 July as previously advertised. In this way, those who wish to attend both may do so. I hope the revised Oxford date is convenient for you; and if it isn't, why not give Coventry a try? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #64[edit]

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2013_June&oldid=1168307482"