User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011 December

Status update: Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 45
Template:. *

Edits by:
 * 1) Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC). Last edit by me at 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC). Last edit by anyone was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC). Bottom edit was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 45
Template:. *

Edits by:
 * 1) Rcsprinter123 at 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC). Last edit by me at 22:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC). Last edit by anyone was by Rcsprinter123 at 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC). Bottom edit was by Rcsprinter123 at 17:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 17:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Status update: Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 45
Template:. *

Edits by:
 * 1) Rich Farmbrough at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Last edit by BAGGER was by Slakr at 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC). Last edit by me at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC). Last edit by anyone was by Rich Farmbrough at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC). Bottom edit was by Rich Farmbrough at 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Femto Bot, (possibly the smallest bot in the world) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Another template
From this edit it follows that you didn't have Template:Refcleanup as a redirect of Template:Citation style. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfectly correct. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

About bird classification
Something to think about while you are blocked. Do you have any thoughts on using data in lists or websites to add details to bird pages with bots or semi-automatic tools. We have been discussing how to update many bird pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Birds. I hope to hear from you in about two weeks time. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough I was just reading the example "Birds of Zanzibar" at the RFC over lists. One I have acquired, prpeared and consumed a little something, I'll take a closer look. Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Good, you can use your talk page when blocked. Yes, it takes a methodical approach to do these tasks. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK pulling the genus author off Wikispecies does not look hard. The mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC, should we be noting monogeneric families? (E.G. Limpkin.) I presume IBC is authoritative enough to cite for this. The IOC spreadsheet is golddust - do you know the licensing of the notes? Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC).


 * I will transcribe your question to the WP bird talk page. Please indicate if you would like any further questions copied to there. Snowman (talk)
 * Is IBC a typo for IOC? What notes do you refer to? Would you agree that there are 903 monotypic bird genera (including monotypic families) listed in the IOC spreadsheet? The IOC taxonomy might be controversial for some birds. The HBW list (here) might be slightly different, because of controversies. Erudite ornithology editors might clean the list manually, if they know where the controversies are. Snowman (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IBC=International Bird Collection =HBW. The IOC spreadsheet has a notes column - we could quote this if it is freely licensed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC).


 * I expect the notes would be copyrighted, but see with the others think on the WP Bird talk page. I used the shorter spreadsheet. A list of monotypic genera from IBC might be useful somewhere. Snowman (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a quick check on monotypic genrea, I get the same result. Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC).


 * That is reassuring. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to get a similar list of monotypic genera according to HBW. It looks like I will not be able to scrape their website for this list; perhaps, I have missed something. Do you have any observations on data scraping ibc.lynxeds.com for a list of monotypic genera? You say; "the mono-specific genera are easy enough to identify from IBC". This is for monotypic genera, not monotypic species. It looks difficult to me, their might be other websites that are easier to scrape.  The HBW spreadsheet might be available - see discussion on the WP Birds talk page. Snowman (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a list from the HBW page last night, I'll post it here later. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC).


 * As well as redirect creation, interesting questions arise - is Acanthidops bairdi a typo for Acanthidops bairdii or vice versa? Is the Golden Bulbul two species or one? Etc. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Thank you for making the list. I suppose you could park it in a sub-page or remove it leaving it in the page history, if you wanted to. I have copied all 9,918 to a txt file on my PC. Interesting that the IOC list has well over 10,000. For clarity: is this list a list of every bird species on the HBW website? If so, then I could list the monotypic genera separately from it. I have not focused on the queries that you raised as yet. Did you come across a lot of listing problems? Some apparent listing anomalies might be due to taxonomy controversies, and some might be typos and other errors. The HWB list could be quite a lot different from the IOC list, partly because of the different functions of the lists. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not looked it up elsewhere, but Acanthidops bairdii is the name on the en Wiki species article. In brief outline, I would be interested to know how you made the HBW list. Snowman (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's where I got he "ii" spelling. Google gives 17k with "i" and 4.5k with "ii". I created the list by scanning all the family pages from HBW. Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Brilliant. How did you scan all those pages? I presumed that the list was alphabetical without any exceptions. Is that assumption correct. Do you agree with 929 monotypic genera according to HBW? I got a perl script to grab the genus name one line and compare it with the genus name in the line above and below. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I get 923/926


 * 1) Herpsilochmus sp nova: New Herpsilochmus Antwren
 * 2) Otus sp. nova: Santa Marta Screech-owl
 * 3) Strix sp. nova: San Isidro Owl
 * 4) Stymphalornis sp nova: Sao Paulo Antwren
 * might be causing some confusion. Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC).


 * IUCN has 10029 aves species. Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Well spotted. I think that they are the only ones listed like that on the full list. I have got all four on my derived list, so subtracting four, I get 925, which still is not the same as yours. What is "923/926"? I am expecting your count to be an integer not a range. I am subtracting one more, because Marsh Antwren (Stymphalornis acutirostris) might not be monotypic if there is a new Stymphalornis sp in that genus. That leaves 924. If there is a difference I could use a list comparer. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is worth doing a monotypic genus list for IUCN. Can you get there birds as a list? Snowman (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I have not made a list, but merely counted them. The number depends on the rule one uses. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Can you get the IUCN url (with the page number) and the corresponding species? Doing something with these would be useful for WP Birds. I do not think I could fix the IUCN links in the cite references of the on bird pages quickly, so I hope that you will be able to help and liaise with the others soon. Snowman (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have requested an export of the full AVES search from IUCN. This should provide all the desired information. Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC).

Page move
Hello. When you moved Template:Infobox UK Legislation to Template:Infobox UK legislation, you did not move its talk page, Template talk:Infobox UK Legislation with it. I assume that this was a mistake. I am unable to fix it myself because the target page Template talk:Infobox UK legislation has a page history, and it does not appear to be possible to request the move of a talk page at Requested Moves, unless I have misunderstood the instructions there. James500 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC).
 * ✅ Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Violation of edit restriction
In this edit you changed "Infobox Military Unit" to "Infobox military unit". This is not listed at AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects and is thus a violation of your editing restriction. Additional examples of this sort of violation are

In the same edit you changed "portal" to "Portal". AWB does not change the capitalization of first letters of templates, so this is also a violation of your editing restriction. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, in these edits you changed &lt;references/> to reflist. You just marked for archiving a discussion on your talk page admonishing you to avoid doing this. As it is not built into AWB and does not affect the rendered page, it is also a violation of your editing restriction. . &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, Looks like you better reset the counter back to 0 Rich!. I didn't look through every edit example but I don't see a problem with the first four provided that other more significant edits are done at the same time. That's just me personally though and my opinions don't usually carry much weight. --Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no exception in these edit restrictions for edits done at the same time. The changes I mentioned are simply forbidden outright. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is surely a case of "thou dost complain too much" – not entirely inconsequential changes bundled with at least one consequential change. As to the 'reflist' change, I suggest: would make the change 'consequential' --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 06:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the change was made consequential, it would violate WP:CITEVAR. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll let it pass until something actually dramatic happens. Getting these kinds of messages after a 12 hour work day followed by 6 hours volunteering is more pathetic than dramatic. Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC).


 *  Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Carl, I am with Kumikio on this one. An editor is allowed to make cosmetic changes, even with automated tools, as long as they are made alongside some more significant edit. If this wasn't specified in those edit restrictions you mention, then such was their intend, no doubt. Debresser (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the intent was not to allow Rich to make whatever unnecessary/disputed cosmetic changes he feels like as long as he is making some significant edit - it was to prohibit Rich from making cosmetic changes of any kind unless they were built into AWB or had demonstrable consensus. – xeno talk 13:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Otherwise, no restriction would be needed at all because cosmetic changes on their own are already prohibited by AWB's rules of use. It would be like an editing restriction prohibiting vandalism - pointless.) – xeno talk 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Xeno, do you still feel sufficiently uninvolved as an administrator to block for these sorts of violations? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that further violations should be reported to a noticeboard for discussion so that any block based on the editing restrictions cannot simply be unilaterally overturned. – xeno talk 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion at AN was just archived, and the editing restrictions were not removed. So it is not clear what another discussion immediately after that one would accomplish. At the same time Elen of the Roads indicated she might be willing to handle enforcement of the restriction. I will ping her again. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And these changes have demonstrable consensus. Which is why only a select few object to them. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Citing sources indicates that ] (which you used in the initial script).

Okay, here's my next question...

Now that you have content in a file, how to you place that content on a Wikipedia page? The Transhumanist 23:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Duff (d.967) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Duff (d.967). Since you had some involvement with the Duff (d.967) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  Sandstein  17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Portal box to Portal
Greetings Rich. I noticed (as did others) that you were replacing Portal box with Portal. IMO all well and good however I have opened up a discussion on the Portal box talk page to solicate some opinions of eliminating portal box completely and just using Portal. Comments have already been made about also merging a couple of other Portal related templates and just using Portal for those as well. So, in the mean time could you stop making the Portal box to Portal edits so that we can discuss the consolidation of these templates (then maybe we can do a bot request or something and just be done). This will eliminate the possibility of changing one and then end up changing it back again after the discussion is over. Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request
There was a question on Template_talk:Merge about a template you made. I gave an answer, but you may have more to say. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing so. Debresser (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Change of venue
Talk page followers might be interested in Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Michael Largo - machine translated
Hi, you've recently fixed some spelling in that article but the whole text is at times unreadable machine translation of its Italian version, it seems. :) What's the policy on that? WillNess (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends how bad it is. In this case it is quicker to fix it up than to research a new article. Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC).

Stable version template
I have posted on the talk page of Template:Stable_version and would like your input there. Great job, by the way, that's an excellent idea.

Falconus p t   c 13:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also took the liberty of adding a couple features, which I am currently updating in the documentation. If you don't like them, let me know, and I'll rework them or take them back down (e.g. if I'm taking this in a direction that you did not intend). Falconus p  t   c 19:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A dab issue
Can you throw light on the point at Talk:Michael Tyson (antiquary), by any chance? PS you said Humph! re the recent Cambridge meetup. There was something screwy about the site notice, but not that I could see; so apologies if you were blind-sided. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NP. Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

HPB unblock

 * Relevant discussion is at User talk:Rich Farmbrough. Anomie⚔ 00:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Joseph Fox bat me to declining the unblock. However, here are some of my thoughts.

JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Breaking the assurance on the basis of which the unblock was made certainly is a perfectly good reason for reblocking, and I am at a loss to imagine why you think not.
 * 2) Reducing the waiting time to a small fraction of the time that you had stated in order to get an unblock was scarcely "fine tuning".
 * 3) Whether it was "fine tuning" or not, if you are unblocked on the basis of assuring us that the waiting time is half an hour, then reducing that time to less than half an hour is breaking that assurance: it is not "wrongly treated as a breaking of that assurance".


 * Waiting time was not even part of the original block. Various time delays have been suggested by various editors, ranging from "as fast as possible" to a week, which I have been happy to comply with. After introducing the waiting time in release 615 as promised, I adjusted it in  later builds to allow the bot to actually work.  Investigation of the code seemed to show that AnomieBot was comparing elapsed time to an uninitialized value, and hence waiting based purely on other tasks it was doing.  Manual adjustment of the delay was then the natural step.  I am sorry people seem to see this as a bad faith act. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC).


 * Whether or not waiting time was "part of the original block", it is clear that the unblock was based on an assurance that the waiting time had been increased. I don't know whether anyone else thought the change was done in bad faith, but I didn't. You made a change which invalidated the reason why the account had been unblocked. What your intentions were in do8ing so was irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * James this sounds sensible of course. The implication of it is that I would have to clear any future changes in the timing of the bot with MSGJ - who has gone off impatiently anyway. This would be hard enough with someone who was willing and able to have intelligent discussion about the matter. Rich Farmbrough, 18:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Do you acknowledge the possibility of the error, reocgnize the concern, and is it fixed? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes and yes in the sense that I now know that Anomie Bot has been running with an adaptive response speed, based on Pixe Bot's and that Anomie Bot has received no complaints about its speed. I have always been willing to discuss the question of response speed in a rational manner and add rational or irrational delays for individual users. Rich Farmbrough, 18:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC).


 * OK I've waited long enough for the bureaucracy. Since the blocking admin flounced out, and no one else seems to be interested, I will resolve this myself, presently. Rich Farmbrough, 12:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Thank you Reaper, you are a scholar. Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Rich Farmbrough, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Rich Farmbrough/Final Fantasy (video game)/Header.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)