User talk:Rich Farmbrough

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk to me[edit]

But better on en: than here... Rich Farmbrough, 20:15 22 April 2007 (GMT).


Hello, Rich Farmbrough, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome!

Hi Rich. You will notice that there is Wikisource:WikiProject DNB, which can help with your contribs. cygnis insignis 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


I have given you autopatrolled rights, since you are active here currently. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:15 21 May 2011 (GMT)

Wikisource:Style guide & hws/hwe[edit]

You will find some stuff at the first link for overarching, though for the Page: namespace stuff, look at Help:Proofread for the {{hyphenated word start}} and {{hyphenated word end}} covered there. If you are using the old style toolbar, I have text for additional buttons in my common.js file. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


I spelled correctly "complete" on your to do list. --Skylark92 (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 17:24 9 September 2011 (GMT)

Concatenating lines[edit]

Please do not concatenate lines as you did with this edit. It makes it very difficult to track changes to the page. In some cases it is necessary to join lines that otherwise would leave a hyphen in a word that is not usually hyphenated but that is the exception rather than the rule. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom free zone: practical people wanted[edit]

So after my polite bits on your lovely unbusy page, and looking at your tardy edit count here. I will politely say welcome back onboard, there are books awaiting your efforts. smiley Anyway, all cheek aside, you do know that we are here and happy to have any spare time and idle/idol/idyll fingers. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 19:53 10 July 2012 (GMT)

echoing billinghurst's sentiment. Dsp13 (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not acceptable[edit]

I am sorry to say, and this is not an attack, but the work done ON THIS PAGE cannot be considered "Proofread" by any standard. This work has some serious typographic difficulties, about which you are advised to inquire in the Scriptorium. If you are new to proofreading, please consider an easier project to work on, where there are previously proofread pages to follow as an example, and to understand what you missed out here. — Ineuw talk 22:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I find every effort acceptable, and in cases where there are errors then some feedback on misses would be worthwhile, especially if there is minutiæ with a work. We all have to learn somewhere and somehow, so supportive guidance on improving has always been a worthwhile approach, rather than a WP style of negative criticism. If there are issues with a requirement for a higher level of expertise, then maybe choosing another work is a good idea, though I would hope that we can be supportive in helping find a work of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

New Proposal Notification - Replacement of common main-space header template[edit]

Announcing the listing of a new formal proposal recently added to the Scriptorium community-discussion page, Proposals section, titled:

Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

DNB articles in your subpages[edit]

Hi Rich. There are a lot of subpages in your user space that are proto articles on DNB people. Are they still valid/needed/needing to be transferred? They come up due to the number of wanted templates that sit within them that are enWP specific. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, most of them are probably still valid. I will try and check through to see which have been created. As to the wanted templates, that's a tricky thing to fix - we could create them here as null templates, temporarily, which would be pretty harmless. I applied to have my restriction removed on en:WP ( if that goes though - which looks unlikely - I will move these to my user space on en:WP. If not I might have to start moving them manually by typing them in on en:WP. Rich Farmbrough, 21:38 12 October 2015 (GMT)
There is no transwiki import from enWS to enWP, but that is not insurmountable. If you need them imported to enWP, give me a buzz, and I will export and import them for you. If they are going to be here for a while I might to wrap them head to tail in "nowiki". — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
They could be imported to my en:WP user space, this would be most useful. However it is important that it is not by my agency they move there: in other words if I were to ask you to move them I would be considered to be breaking various rules. Rich Farmbrough, 22:06 13 October 2015 (GMT)
I would think this conversation would be that it evident that I have initiated this matter. I am happy to discuss the options that seem to be needed are that we can neuter the proto-articles, or if that is problematic, and these p-articles are now at a stage to be migrated to your user namespace at enWP, I am happy to do so. Clearly this is at my instigation, as part of one of enWS's maintenance phases, though if we need to hold for a little longer, then that can be done. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that it might be worth waiting for the outcome to my amendment request - there is some appetite for at least reducing the scope of sanctions. Rich Farmbrough, 20:56 18 October 2015 (GMT)
It was an offer and it is totally in your hands. Buzz me if I can help. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)