Rich Farmbrough
Note: I will answer on your talk page (and usually copy here), and look for your responses here. If you see my answer here and it's not on your talk page, I'm either not happy with it (haven't finished writing it), or I forgot to copy it over. R.F.
FAQ
Please feel free to read my FAQ. R.F.
Full ArQuive
Alternatively browse my Talk Archive Index. R.F.
Merry Christmas To ALL
Likely to be away from WP most of the next few days. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54 24 December 2006 (GMT).
A request for assistance
Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 02:50 3 January 2007 (UTC).
ASIN template and the A-list
Thanks for the ASIN template. I don't really like ASINs either, and can stop using them if you wish. I like to have it available as a compromise if others dislike removal of a 'bad' ISBN. I have feelers out regarding Argentine rock on the outstanding A list since I was not able to quickly solve it myself. Regards, Keesiewonder 13:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Rich! This is the first I've heard of an ASIN template, but since it seems to have been created, would you consider adding a comment about it over on Category talk:Articles with invalid ISBNs? It could help out with difficult books which have no known valid ISBN but can be found in Amazon. EdJohnston 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, I am not sure that ASINs are necessary for books. I have found that for most cases, an OCLC was readily found. Note: User:Shimgray/ASIN So far I have only found one book that I could only find an ASIN for ([1]), and in that case, only a http://amazon.fr link displayed the book, making the {{ASIN}} template useless. However if an ASIN is all that someone has, I'm all for them using the {{ASIN}} template so it helps others find the OCLC.
- There are many articles that use ASINs. Via google, I quickly found ASINs are in use on WP for books (Raymond Cattell (Books) and Edith Cavell) and audio/video publications (Christopher Parkening, Julian Bream and Patty Larkin). I have no idea about audio/video identification schemes ..., yet. John Vandenberg 01:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikilinking dates
Thanks for your input on this topic. If I'm interpreting you incorrectly at [2], please let me know. I'd rather have the dates all wikilinked if that is current policy since, I assume, doing so would help bring an article just one tiny step closer to FA status. Keesiewonder 10:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Admin (again)
Perhaps it's time now for it? or what do you say? →AzaToth 16:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Info on the ISBN-fixing activity now on my user page
Hello Rich. Take a look at the new version of my user page where I tried to summarize the ISBN-fixing activity. Let me know if I missed out on some useful bit of advice for newcomers. So far, there has not been a real project for this work, but it wouldn't hurt if the effort looked a bit respectable, since our changes are sometimes questioned by people who don't know what it's about or why we're doing it. The 'members' of the project are simply the set of people who have been fixing ISBNs lately, using either the list or the category. Please comment if you can think of anything to add. EdJohnston 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Albert Fish
Come back and check the article. I rewrote a lot based on primary sources, and the secondary contemporary reports in the New York Times. Most of the previous article had sensational material from the tabloids of the time, based on speculation, and his own delusional testimony. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delinking years
In your recent edit to Little Britain you delinked a number of years. I'm interested in your reasoning here. The Manual of Style indicates that there is no consensus when it comes to the linking of bare years. Is there a reason beyond personal preference that you delinked these? Chovain 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, actually there is consensus to "make only links useful in context" the spectrum of disagreement is about what constitutes "useful in context", and even here there is general agreement that there are too many linked years. In this article the links to 2001, 2003 and 2006 are of little or no use, even links to 2003 in television would be of limited use, as it does not mention the show, nor really provide a context. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47 7 January 2007 (GMT).
Typos in Chess
Your change of "truely" -> "truly" in Chess was a bad edit. Quotes must retain the original spelling even if anachronistic. 24.177.112.146 07:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I realised that, but didn't correct the edit summary. Rich Farmbrough, 10:04 7 January 2007 (GMT).
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Queen Elizabeth Elementary School (New Westminster), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Eastmain 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Vis-à-vis has also been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 2 | 8 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
JS
Nope :-( - My JS still doesn't work correctly either even with Deskana's change undone - perhaps the devs have changed something? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of pages with Invalid ISBNs: new version planned?
Hello Rich! The List that you generated on 22 Aug 06 is dwindling fast, under the onslaught of the new army of ISBN-fixers. It's down to less than 200 entries, while about 2066 pages are still known to have problems (via the Category). Since the List has become so popular, is there any chance you could generate a new one? I understand it has to be made via an off-line operation that only you know how to do. EdJohnston 23:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, there's not much point re-generating it as it stood, because it's checksum problems only. The early version scanned a databse dump for checksum problems to create a list of articles, and then (if you remember) SmackBot simply added a category to the article, the editor then had to guess which ISBN had a checksum problem - or use the list. The current version is run against every aricle with "ISBN" in it, about 84,000 at the last count, and labels the individual problem ISBNs, so the category should be sufficient. The only advantage to the list is that you can spot when an ISBN error is common to a bunch of articles. Perhaps I'll consider createing a list for this purpose when the next database dump is done, sorted by ISBN no. Rich Farmbrough, 23:51 9 January 2007 (GMT).