User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2023 March

Previous · Index · Next

Wikimedians for Sustainable Development - February 2023 Newsletter

This is our twentyfourth newsletter, covering February 2023. This issue has news related to SDGs 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

Meetings

• 2023-03-05 User group meeting (SDG all)
• Wikimedians_for_Sustainable_Development/Next_meeting (SDG all)

Activities

• Ongoing: 365 climate edits (SDG 13)
• Ongoing: Suggest "Environmental sustainability and climate crisis" topics for Wikimania (SDG all)
• Ongoing: Africa Environment WikiFocus (SDG 13)
• Past: Edit for Climate Change: Wikipedia Editathon (SDG 13)
• Past: WikiForHumanRights 2023 Campaign: Capacity Building Sessions on "Tools for Finding the Right Articles" and "Building Article List with Petscan" (SDG 10 & 13)
• Past: WikiForHumanRights 2023 Campaign: Regional Office Hours for Africa and Maghreb Regions (SDG 10 & 13)

News

• NCBI breakdown of common garden foods with photographs by Phytotheca (SDG 2)

Resources

• 3000 Arctic images (SDG 13)
• SMART-Servier Medical Art upload (SDG 3)

Research

• Open Source in Environmental Sustainability (SDG 13)

New Wikidata properties

• Norwegian war prisoner detention camp ID (SDG 16)
• Iowa legislator ID (SDG 16)
• National Grid Balancing Mechanism unit ID (SDG 7)

Wikidata query examples

• Map of disasters by type (SDG 11)

Featured articles

• English Wikipedia: South Asian river dolphin (SDG 14)
• English Wikipedia: List of World Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka (SDG 11)
• English Wikipedia: List of lamiid families (SDG 15)

• Featured images
• 
  Three horses (SDG 15)
• 
  Hunter baby chameleon (SDG 15)
• 
  Rice paper butterfly (SDG 15)
• 
  Lasiocampa quercus 4th instar caterpillar Keila (top view) (SDG 15)
• 
  Lasiocampa quercus 4th instar caterpillar Keila (side view).jpg (SDG 15)
• 
  Mockingbird on the North Lake Trail (SDG 15)
• 
  Striated Pardalote (SDG 15)
• 
  Wiesenvögelchen (SDG 15)
• 
  Herring gull (SDG 15)
• 
  Northern shoveler (SDG 15)

This message was sent with Global message delivery by Ainali (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC) • Contribute • Manage subscription

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cambio (band) albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Cambio (band) albums indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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 "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rich Farmbrough/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block seems to based on a misreading of a potentially constructive discussion involving several editors. The blocking admin said that my statement, "As such I don't think I should go along with it." - (referring to an ER introduced by Barkeep95) means I will not "abide" by the ER - or as he puts it in the block notice: "Rich states he will not be complying with editing restrictions." These are three very different things: however to clarify, the intent was to look at any possible resolutions to the situation, as should be clear from the discussion which provides the context.

Decline reason:

Seeing as you are continuing to argue that you did no wrong, and I would add the comments from HJ Mitchell below carrying a good deal of weight, I do not feel that an unblock at this time would be wise. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC).

Rich, I recommend you reconsider your approach here. You need to convince Worm, Barkeep, or another admin that 1) you will abide by the restrictions you're under until and unless you successfully appeal them and 2) you won't edit in a manner that causes more problems than it solves. Sorry to say that you haven't convinced me, and I'm a friend. The community has been very clear that it wants you to contribute by typing text into the edit window, not using any scripts, bots, or tools. It is equally clear that it does not want you making the same edit to multiple pages en masse or making trivial edits that have little or no effect on the rendered page, like changing capitalisation of templates or changing parameter names. And yet you've continued to make edits that may or may not technically violate the letter of your restrictions but are clearly the same sorts of edits that the community wants to move you away from. That's why you're blocked. I would love to see you return and write some articles and do other useful things, but arguing (two years after the fact) that Worm misinterpreted your remark is not the way to go.

Please consider a different approach. I would suggest contrition, humble acceptance of the very clear community consensus, followed by a description of the sorts of edits you'd make (preferably adding sourced content to the encyclopaedia) if you were unblocked. I won't be the reviewing admin because we're friends in real life (even if it's been a while!), but if I were I would look favourably on that sort of request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's be clear - this is not about any of those things, which we could have a conversation about. It's about edits which were agreed at WikiProject Cities, and a new ER which is so vague that this edit could be a violation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC).

I cannot see how adding sourced content to the encyclopaedia would violate any edit restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You've had nearly two years to think of a decent unblock request, and you come out with this?? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Come on, Rich, make a proper unblock request. You don't have to agree with the block or your restrictions as long as you intend to abide by them. All you have to say is you accept the community consensus, even if you don't agree with it, and you'll focus on adding sourced content to the encyclopaedia instead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  I will if I have the time and inclination. I don't find this stuff particularly engaging, though in some ways it is interesting. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC).
  

Not "vague" at all.

History of Russia (1855–1894)#Reforms and their limits currently has (among other things) this:

Alexander III put the most rigid economy into practice. The civil list of the Imperial family was reduced, and estimates for the army, navy and civil service were cut down considerably. ...

That "[vague]" tag is yours. It seems inappropriate, because the very next sentence gives examples of just how strictly the tsar was economizing. I can only guess that you took that word "economy" in a different sense than it was being used — the older, original sense is still the first found in even the American Heritage Dictionary's definition:

1.  a. Careful, thrifty management of resources, such as money, materials, or labor: learned to practice economy in making out the household budget.

b. An example or result of such management; a saving.

If I'm not mistaken, you read it as:

2.  a. The system or range of economic activity in a country, region, or community: Effects of inflation were felt at every level of the economy.

b. A specific type of economic system: an industrial economy; a planned economy.

In the latter sense, I would wonder what "rigid economy" even meant. I recall Ben Franklin's advice ("If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Economy, will be a Fortune sufficient."), and notice that two words there ("Industry" and "Economy") have both micro-scale (personal) and macro-scale (societal) meanings... and taking the wrong ones could make that sentence apply to an alliance of nations (or monarchs) but not an ordinary married couple.

Does that clear up the issue? Would you mind my taking off your "[vague]" tag? Please ping me in reply here (I assume you can still reply here). Thanks! – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: ("drive-by" comment) Colleague, a major issue with the statement is not that it is vague, but it is an opinion. All opinions must be properly attributed. Therefore I am replacing the "vague" with "cn" tag. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven and Lokys dar Vienas: Thanks for your work on this article, both of you. The {{Vague}} tag was not added by me, but by an anon IP in this diff. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough and Lokys dar Vienas: Sorry for the misattrib, Rich; your bot had simply added a date to the prior editor's tag right after it was created, and titled its edit with the 'vague' tag. I've filled in the citation Lokys wanted; found the phrase "rigid economy" used of Alexander III all the way back in 1887's Indianapolis Journal, quoting a Russian official translated in a New York release. I don't know whether the later occurrences (including our article) ultimately originate in the same source, but at least it seems possible. (I did rephrase it in the text as "strict economizing", just to avoid future confusions.) – _•Raven  ^.talk 07:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good call, we try to avoid outdated or ambiguous phraseology within reason. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC).

10 years ago

In this diff at a [Signpost-related RFC] I quoted your commenting at a Signpost arbcom report 10 years ago. Thank you for that, back then. Feel free to comment in the current discussion, which is about whether Signpost should try to be NPOV or allow itself to take one-sided positions with respect to open Arbcom actions. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)