User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2015 August

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) in topic Wikidata weekly summary #173

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 ·

Reference errors on 31 July edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Video games journalism edit

Hello. In this edit you added this sentence- "Kotaku retroactively disclosed certain relationships between Patricia Hernandez and Anna Anthropy and Christine Love." I was wondering if you could elaborate on what 'certain relationships' meant in this context, and if you had a transcript or convenient timestamps for the youtube video you used as a source for it? Thanks in advance. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • Not sure its worth that level of detail. However a search shows what the disclosed relationships were:
  • The disclosed relationship with Anthropy is: (Update: full disclosure...Anthropy, was housemates with me and a mutual friend in the summer of 2012.)
    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]
    5. [5]
    6. [6] (dated October 2012)
  • For Love (Update: full disclosure...Love and I are friends.)
    1. [7]
    2. [8]
Also for Quinn (Update: full disclosure, Quinn and I are friends.)
One other review is also tagged with "Quinn and I are friends"
Of course there are a number of other disclosures you can find on Kotaku that might be of interest. Google is your friend.
As for the timecode, I put a rough timecode in an HTML comment. I don't remember if the interview included more public information about the relationships than the disclosures.
Interestingly I got a bad certificate on Kotaku.com

kotaku.com uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is only valid for the following names: f.ssl.fastly.net , *.f.ssl.fastly.net , www-dev.banksimple.com , status-dev.banksimple.com , www.ao-staging.com , *.catchpoint.com , api.nuget.org , urx.com , www.urx.com , *.urx.io , gems.secretcdn.net , developers.urx.com , *.adroll.com , api.staging.purpose.com , fast.appcues.com , *.vimeo-staging.com , format.com , format-staging.com , jalopnik.com , cineworld.catchdigital.com , assets.listia.com , *.therealreal.com , *.discogs.com , *.beatport.com , api.movements.purpose.com , *.dotabuff.com , *.britishcouncil.org , sfdc.fastly.com , *.e3expo.com , dotabuff.com , assets.webflow.com , *.500px.com , nydailynews.com , *.nydailynews.com , *.beacon.fastlydns.net , *.fastly-debug.com , vimeo-staging.com , www.kredo.com , *.trytreehouse.com , *.format-assets.com , projects.fivethirtyeight.com , *.services.disqus.com , *.disq.us , disq.us , vector.mapzen.com , *.new.livestream.com , *.nr-data.net , *.isu.pub , *.sf4u.com , thoughtbot.com , *.thoughtbot.com , donations.movements.purpose.com , staging-donations.purpose.com , www.movingsuppliesdepot.com , cdn1.leadcommerce.com , *.shakr.com , projects.propublica.org , *.cooladata.com , thoughtbot.se , *.businessinsider.com , businessinsider.com , *.adis.ws , www.maestro.io , f-jsv2.harveynichols.com , f-mediav2.harveynichols.com , f-skinv2.harveynichols.com , www.gokudos.com , donations.oxfam.org , *.piriform.com , imgcs.net , static.flocabulary.com , rubytogether.org , www.creativeedge.com , nm.contextweb.com , *.mensjournal.com , *.usmagazine.com , *.rollingstone.com

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Cheers! I might look at clarifying the relationships- might the current wording might lead readers into thinking it's more than just friendships. PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #169 edit

Notice edit

Hey, Rich. I noticed you attempted here to open a Request for Arbitration Enforcement regarding Mass killings under Communist regimes. We are (or mostly I am) currently trying to do the same thing at the talk page here. I was advised to alert all active users that associated with the subject, so I feel your presence would be appreciated. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

AfD notice edit

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because you recently particpated in a discussion that resulted in a deletion request which you may be interested in. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Don't leave me hanging! edit

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depression Quest, you wrote "Quiz question What well known piece of GamerGate vernacular might be used to support deletion?" What's the answer? Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Literally who?" I beleive it stems from an attempt to follow up a claimed connection between a person and an organization '... and they said, literally "who?"' It is used to try and distance GamerGate from any interest in Quinn, Wu, etc, who as a result are sometimes referred to collectively as "the Literally Whos". Ain't language fun? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

When did you join? edit

Top of your page currently says: " has been a Wikipedian for about 136 months", but at the bottom says: Joined on:12:33, Tuesday, March 3, 2015 (UTC). Some timezone wirdness perhaps? (I'm at NZST, GMT+12) - hmm, on further checking, looks like a bug in whatever magic is behind Wikipedia:Co-op. Snori (talk)

Yes the second date is when I joined Wikipedia:Co-op. I believe the template may be Lua controlled, and hence not amenable to subst: and fix. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Well I have sort-of subst: and fixed it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

Reference errors on 11 August edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

New sections edit

Hey there! This is trivial, and sorry for even bringing this to your attention: On discussion pages, I notice you're apparently editing the last section and then adding your new section within it. This is a problem because from the watchlist it looks like you edited the previous section when really you've created a new one. Instead consider using the "New section" button at the top the page. It will generate an automated edit summary "Section title: New section", making it very clear what's happened. The added bonus is you don't need to bother with the == Section heading == markup, there's a convenient text field available to enter the section heading. Finally, you won't run into edit conflicts! Just thought I'd let you know, thanks MusikAnimal talk 14:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I actually have a .js fix for this, but I am not permitted to use it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

The Signpost: 05 August 2015 edit

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll edit

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #170 edit

Reference errors on 15 August edit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just a thought. edit

Consider getting more involved with a sister project like Wiktionary, Wikiquote, or Wikisource, and seeking adminship there. Nothing signifies trust with the tools like already having them and using them wisely elsewhere in Wikimedia. Not that I've been snooping your edits or anything, but you have an edit history on Wiktionary that goes back eleven years, so if you were more active in that community for a few months, you would be a strong candidate. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

B... but... Wiktionary is hard! (Having said that there are a couple of projects I have been planning there for some time.) ~~
Everything is hard until you get yourself accommodated with it. Poke around Wiktionary's Beer Parlour and Requests for Deletion a bit and you'll see the big issues needing attention. bd2412 T 14:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the suggestion! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Actually, just to revise it slightly, you have a great history at Wikisource. bd2412 T 14:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of S. P. A. M. edit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on S. P. A. M. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Samuel Tarling (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

If evidence that the speedy system is broken were needed this is it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
A redirect deleted as G3 and A1 in under a minute? One of the poorest decisions I've seen in a while. I've restored the history if only so that everyone can see what a bizarre deletion it was. Jenks24 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. It's just stuff that happens under the current system. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Conversely, given the 'spammy' name and lack of #REDIRECT in the original Old revision of S. P. A. M., nor a categorisation {{R from …}} or anything similar to suggest it might have been intentional, it is perhaps a reflection of the efficiency of WP's mechanisms. On a slightly wider issue of WP:V, I haven't been able to turn up any obvious references to the initials S.P.A.M. being a pen-name of Jonathan Swift—it's isn't in the WP:LEAD of the article either—and the only mention I have found so far is the recent uncited addition[11] to the spam disambiguation page. For the time-being at least, I have tagged[12][13][14][15] the redirects with {{Redirect from pen name}}. —Sladen (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I know you have, but thanks for telling me anyway. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
My Google-fu has failed on this occasion, please could you assist myself and others by sharing whatever WP:RSes you had found which lead to the creation of the redirects. —Sladen (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't believe redirects require RS, however for your delectation I refer you to Joseph F. Clarke (1977). Pseudonyms. BCA. p. 144.. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Thank you. I've added this to Talk:Jonathan Swift#S.P.A.M. so that it is kept somewhere safe and can be introduced into the relevant places. Would you be willing to expand the {{cite}} on that Talk page with a short quotation of the relevant paragraph for the benefit of those without a paper copy? —Sladen (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Swift was the ultimate anonymiser and pseudonymiser. While people like Addison and Steele, and Pope may have been prolific, Dean Swift takes the biscuit. He even wrote a pangyric against himself, and a response to it. He used "Cadenus" an anagram of the Latin for "dean". Isaac Bickerstaff, Abel Roper, T. H. Philomath, Martinus Scriblerus (Martin==Swift) the which he shared with other worthies, Student of Astrology, Simon Wagstaff, Esq. and many many more. One might indeed be hard put to find a name Swift didn't use, relying, perhaps on some variation of The Engine to generate them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Brilliant, thank, could you check that the extent of the quote has been transferred correctly (or ideally make any corrections required directly): Talk:Jonathan Swift#S.P.A.M.Sladen (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry that wasn't a quote, just me talking. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Thank you for removing the incorrect citation[16]. Would you be able to assist by providing (a quote from) the direct original cite? —Sladen (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks dude edit

Not sure what I was doing wrong but showing the cost was the problem? Thanks anyway. Luka.J350 ‎

No problem. I think that combined with the focus on Amazon.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

Thanks edit

Thanks for the email tip about the edit filter / Alrasheed socks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

Use of "paywall" sources edit

Hello Rich, several days ago, I removed three "paywall" sources from Fox & Friends. The very first sentence contains the word "conservative" with four sources - two behind a paywall and one not supporting the claim. I replaced them with one New York Times source which succinctly supported the statement. That edit has been undone by an editor who says "Don't remove academic resources simply because they're behind a paywall or in print. Especially when you replace them with online opinion journalism." I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone, but it seems counter-productive to insist on using paywall sources that cannot be seen by non-subscribers (or print-only sources) when credible, current online sources (like NYT) are available. Can you please take a look and give me your opinion on the matter? Thanks SchoolMarm101 (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Here's my take on it:
  1. The ref that doesn't mention conservatism, is not useful.
  2. Refs in print only or behind paywalls should only be replaced by equal or better quality non-paywalled or on-line sources.
  3. In general four references would be too many. However there have been considerable disputes over these type of statements, I would be happy leaving four refs here.
  4. Any paywalled items should be tagged with {{Subscription needed}}   Done
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

The Signpost: 12 August 2015 edit

Nomination for deletion of Template:Stable version edit

 Template:Stable version has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I would like to award you this for reaching 1,000,000 edits--and still contributing! Thank you. Rubbish computer 18:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Opinions on Edit Warring edit

Hi Rich, hope you are well. I would really value your Opinion on User:WereSpielChequers/Edit Warring, especially if you could use your IT powers to come up with some stats as to how many people get blocked for edit warring and how often that loses us editors. ϢereSpielChequers 16:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't that good this morning which is why I didn't attend Oxford. I'll take a look. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Thanks, my excuse was that the trains were in a mess. ϢereSpielChequers 16:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
So things were less than equal? You were missed, but half a dozen still turned up, including two first-timers. We gossiped about you extensively. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes things were slightly less than equal. Good to hear that you had a fascinating topic of conversation. I progressed with fixing my election fire though, discovering that standard switch sizes aren't standard. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #171 edit

Vesvolod Chaplin edit

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Vesvolod Chaplin, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://adam.curry.com/art/1389371286_ER23bhJJ.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Edit filter question edit

You said that Special:AbuseLog/12869359 was just the filter working properly: are you sure? I can't imagine a filter that's supposed to do this, and I've already performed the edit that it prevented this other user from performing. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The problem is the user's name, as the warning message states. They are now blocked on that basis as well. I'm not sure if they were simply unable to spell "fascinator", or were indulging in a little trolling. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

The Signpost: 19 August 2015 edit

Cheers :) edit

Thanks for your nice comment on my talk page. Really appreciate you keeping an eye on my stuff as I am still quite new to Wikipedia and so learning the ropes as I go! BestWakelessGrub (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wackypedia listed at Redirects for discussion edit

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wackypedia. Since you had some involvement with the Wackypedia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 02:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Category:Commons category template with no category set nominated for deletion edit

Hi Rich. FYI, Category:Commons category template with no category set, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is here. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Gensis edit

 

A tag has been placed on Gensis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #172 edit

Gertz v. Robert Welch edit

Not surprising, as you put it. Back when I wrote it (a long time ago, but in this galaxy  ) I was depending entirely on the SCOTUS opinion as a source; it was things like this that taught me that you're better off reading the whole published case history where and when you can.

I'll be interested to see how you improve it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

SCOTUS opinions (and indeed UK Supreme Court opinions) make good and informative reading. But I'm sure you are right that they are often insufficient for full coverage. Notably the rulings sometimes have unintended consequences, in which case the weight given in the ruling is distorted for the purposes of the article.
I won't do a lot more, since I only have the Googlebooks view of Gertz's book, but I have yet to read the entire judgement. I will bring out the change in emphasis on the crime and communism libels, which is an interesting sidelight - Gertz avoided the implied "obstruction of justice" libel in his first case, as it Nuccio was appealing the murder charge, and the three civil cases were pending. However the SCOTUS justices drew Wayne (Geertz's representative) on the point in the SC verbal arguments. In this it seems they erred - Gertz says "One assumes that each justice has read all of the briefs. One hopes that he .. has gone through the whole record." The hope, at least, seems to have been a little optimistic.
I will also have to put something about the Seventh Circuit case when I get a better idea of what happened.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Powell was sort of infamous for only reading the briefs before oral argument (But at least he read them all the way through). Brennan used to read the trial record and all the evidence as well (See his dissent from the per curiam opinion (believed to have been written by Powell) in Snepp v. United States for an excellent demonstration of the benefits of being that thorough). Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Elliptio congaraea for deletion edit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elliptio congaraea 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/Elliptio congaraea 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 notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl (talkcontribs) 01:02, 3 September 2015

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI edit

 
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 26 August 2015 edit

Contested PROD and AfD edit

Hello, Rich. Your PROD of the article 2147483659 (number) has been removed, without explanation, so I have taken it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2147483659 (number). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't PROD it, that was the redoubtable User:David Eppstein. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
Yes, I see you are right. Silly me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Redirects edit

I just wanted to let you know I redirected a number of redirects you created from Great Britain and Ireland to Ireland–United Kingdom relations per Talk:Great Britain and Ireland#"Ireland and the United Kingdom". I'm going to assume you disagree that Ireland–United Kingdom relations is the primary topic of those phrases, however that is the consensus. Having different versions of very similar phrases redirecting to different pages should be avoided. I recommend you open a discussion to redirect all of the phrases if you wish. I've already explained my reasoning for redirecting to that article.
Regards,
Rob984 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

They are redirects, a long as they go somewhere reasonable, that's fine by me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

19th Battalion (United States Marine Corps) edit

As mentioned in my last edit, the article the way it is formatted with {{commons category}}, is part of an on-going so please do not revert the edit that changes the {{commons category}} until the discussion is finished. Thank you. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC).Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #173 edit