User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 20

Query

Hi, Redrose 64,

Do you have any idea about why the ''done'' template does not transclude at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 24?Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's because ClueBot III (talk · contribs) inserts tl| so that  Done becomes {{done}}. I don't know why; you'd need to ask the botop. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks:) Have asked Cobi about the issue! And hope you do not mind my occasional pestering about technical issues etc. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Redrose64. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Muzammil (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hindustanilanguage: I don't discuss Wikipedia matters off-wiki, except at organised meetups, such as m:Meetup/Oxford/3 which was the only time that I am certain that I met JohnCD (talk · contribs) in person. There were so many new faces that day that I don't remember them all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of PNG logo

Good day Redrose64, I replaced the logo for the Eastern Cape Kings in September 2017 here File:Eastern_Provings_Kings_logo.svg, but see the PNG logo is still on the server here File:Eastern_Province_Kings_logo.png. Can you please delete the PNG file which is not being used? Redards (Vectorebus (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC))

Update: I realized the PNG file wasn't deleted because the new SVG file had a spelling mistake. I corrected this and the redundant PNG file should expire now. (Vectorebus (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC))

@Vectorebus: Put {{db-author}} on the ones that you don't want; more at WP:CSD#G7. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As of November 2017

Sorry for deleting this - I wasn't 100% sure how it works!Turini2 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Turini2: See Template:As of and MOS:DATED. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Rfc notice

More options have been added to the Rfc at Charles, Prince of Wales. You may want to add that article to your watchlist :) GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: (i) I never participated (in that I expressed no preference for any of the options), I just explained one or two procedural matters; (ii) it's already on my watchlist because of (i). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarify: Who are you responding to, me or the other editor? GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Er, other than myself, you are the only one who has posted here, so obviously... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I meant at the Charles, Prince of Wales article, since I already understand the history/make up of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

An article which I have never edited. If you mean Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales (which is not an article), in recent days I have made four comments in three sections. My most recent (which you edited contrary to both WP:INDENTGAP and WP:TPO) was a general comment (a lot of people assume that "United" refers to the political union of England with Scotland), not a reply to a specific individual, so it took an indent one deeper than the previous level. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Template:V0.5

Your recent edit to Template:V0.5 have restored automated categorization to at least some articles, which is undesirable. See User:Jonesey95/sandbox3 for a current count of category populations. All of the categories were free of pages before your edit to the template. This discussion is probably the right place to address any concerns or to seek a resolution to the original request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"what the hell happened there?"

Sorry about that and for my not noticing.
Caused by my using copy 'n' paste while repositioning the wikilink to the town (Laugharne) from where it was to the new first mention. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 10:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: I have a question re your copyediting of these Carmarthenshire place articles. Why have you removed mention of Carmarthen Bay on pages like Laugharne Township and Pendine? It's kind of a prominent local feature. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Seemed redundant to me because I had added/kept "coast". If you want me to, I'll put "bay" back. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 15:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pendine doesn't mention coast. You may recall that a little over two years ago, I went through all 72 articles for Carmarthenshire communities, and described their neighbouring communities. For those on the coast, except for one (Llanelli Rural, which has a curious shape) I started at Carmarthen Bay (mentioning that) and went around in a clockwise direction. For example, Laugharne Township and Pendine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have made the following revision,
[Pendine]... is a village and community in Carmarthenshire, Wales. Situated on the northern shore of Carmarthen Bay and bordered by the communities of Eglwyscummin and Llanddowror, the population at the 2011 census was 346.
 Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 10:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"Bombay Explosion (1944)" vs. "1944 Bombay explosion" in WP:EASTEREGG examples

Hi, Redrose64. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Piped link#"Bombay Explosion (1944)" vs. "1944 Bombay explosion" in transparency examples about the reason you reverted my recent edit there. Can you please help me to understand your reasoning? —Bkell (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Paddington

I'm sorry, but the statue is located at Paddington, and its one of its icon landmarks, it also shows once of its most famous trains, the intercity 125, and the main TOC service the station. I don't see why your acting like a child over a picture, Grown up!Gwrhst (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gwrhst: Me acting like a child? First, see WP:NPA. Then consider this: what is the topic of the article? Should we show a picture that represents that topic, if not wholly then as fully as possible? If you feel that a photo that shows a tiny portion of the topic, and gives prominence to two objects that are related to the topic but are not the topic itself, you should discuss at the article's talk page, and not re-add the disputed content. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Funny, Paddington is the only article like it, Marylebone, Euston, King's Cross, Waterloo either show outside the station or part of the monument etc. If you don't like that then I don't know why you are on here. And yes you are acting like a child, one that's screams his head of saying "no I want it now" My edit was perfectly fine, and if you were not happy with it, you should have sent me a message on my talk page first, explaining why, not just changing I back and I quote "because I don't like it". Either way I'm not going to keep arguing about it, have it your own way! Gwrhst (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gwrhst: When did I say "because I don't like it"? Please supply the exact diff, I am not going to waste my time searching for something that does not exist. If you cannot, I request that you retract your false claim.

I am not saying that the image has no place in the article. It's a picture of a statue that just happens to be in a railway station (if it weren't for that HST, it could be in some other building, for instance, Brunel University). Statue aside, it could be one of a dozen stations (maybe Bristol Temple Meads, Cardiff Central or Exeter St Davids). How much of Paddington station is in that image? From top to bottom, we have:

• part of the girder above platforms 10/11 which supports two roof spans
• part of the wall behind platform 12 and the roof girder above that
• part of platform 10 and the fence that runs partway along that
• part of platform 9 and a tiny part of platform 8

The statue is movable, it has to my certain knowledge been in at least two other positions in the past. The locomotive (not even a complete train) is definitely movable, it is not a static exhibit.

What I am saying is that the image concerned is not appropriate for use as the lead section image (see MOS:LEADIMAGE) because it is not representative of the article's subject, viz. the railway station that is in London and is named Paddington. That roof - with its four spans alternately wide and narrow and its two transepts - is iconic, there is nothing else like it. Your image doesn't even show pillars or glazing, just tiny portions of two girders. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Redrose64. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Finland?

Hello R. This morning I found over 80 pages in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. The bulk of them are in articles related to Finland but I could not find the reason why they wound up in the cat. When you have a moment could you please use your expertise to find out what is going on. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's probably something to do with the experiments being made by Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) to Template:Lang-fi. Let it settle down, then remove the entirely superfluous {{PP-template|small=yes}}, and WP:NULLEDIT any pages still in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. I omitted a </includeonly> so the template dutifully transcluded the template documentation into 1000+ article namespace pages before another editor alerted me to my error. I have fixed the template and null edited those 1000+ pages to restore them to their correct rendering. I will null edit everything in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates except Talk:National liberalism which is an example that I'm using in a current discussion at WT:AWB.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks R and Trappist the monk for taking care of this. I hope you both have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Null edit needed

Hello again. This page move has caused the page to show up in the cat. As it is fully protected I can't perform the null edit. If you would take care of it when you have a moment that would be appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Why PapiDimmi would want to change their user name when they're indef blocked at the only two Wikis where they've made more than a handful of edits, I don't know. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 18:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Update of Springbok logo

Hi User:Redrose64, do you follow Rugby Union? I'm in the process of updating South African sports logos. I see that the current Springbok logo File:South_Africa_national_rugby_union_team.svg is wrong and needs to be updated. The emblem does not have the Protea flower in the emblem since before the 2011 Rugby World Cup – the Protea is added in a separate emblem. I'm quite familiar with replacing SVG logos now, but just want to follow the correct procedure and discuss with an editor. Should I contact User:Adenosine Triphosphate, or just go ahead? Regards (Vectorebus (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC))

It's clearly copyrighted and not available under a free license, so you need to make sure that all ten of the WP:NFCCP criteria are followed (none of them, not even the sub-criteria, are optional). Fair-use images are not for indiscriminate use anywhere that might be related; I've just made this edit.

I don't see why you shouldn't ask Adenosine Triphosphate (talk · contribs), or even WT:RU. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me; yes I will be there

though I don't really care about the issue one way or the other. Serendi^podous 20:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: Have had to cancel - snow. See you January. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for trying to clarify here. But I'm sure SMcCandlish wouldn't want his signature on what he didn't create. Feel free to refactor or clean up in some other way if you prefer. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: What do you mean "SMcCandlish wouldn't want his signature on what he didn't create"? Of course they created it. What do you think this edit was - typofixing? Now, if you want to know why I made the edit that you linked, take a look at this edit, which is where Legobot (talk · contribs) updated the RfC listing with the new RfC that was demonstrably initiated by SMcCandlish, and when doing so, appended your signature. It is the timestamp that Legobot looks for. The bot copies from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to that timestamp (inclusive). So I needed to make sure that the copied signature was relevant to the original statement and not one that belongs to a later comment. So, it is necessary that such subsequent comments appear after the end of the RfC opening statement, otherwise they are treated as if they are part of the statement. There is no way of marking the end of the RfC opening statement other than by using a timestamp, either a five-tilde one or a full signature.

The second reason was the table. WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief says "For technical reasons, statements may not contain tables or complex formatting, although these may be added after the initial statement (i.e., after the first date stamp)." This is not "rules for the sake of rules", but "if you go against this recommendation, your page will not appear in the manner that you intended". In short: tables break RfCs, because tables cannot be passed through template parameters. I have lost count of the number of times that I've had to fix and explain in the past. I had a go at explaining this at Template talk:Efn#Error, 05:32, 9 December 2017. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot for us to learn, and we often don't. I did understand, at least partly, your reasons for the edit, and did mean the thanks. I just wanted to alert you to my follow-up edit, in which I removed from the table the part that was added by this IP edit was so that it wouldn't look like it was coming from the RFC proposer; in case you'd want to fix it better or differently. I see I didn't quite take it back to his version, but close enough. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That RfC bears no resemblance now to what I wrote. And it's not required to sign RfCs anyway; we often don't when we think that a signature will prejudice the results.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: VPP is a discussion page, albeit one that is not in a talk namespace, so if other people started altering your opening statement against WP:TPO, you could simply have reverted them. A full signature might not be required, but a timestamp is, see WP:RFC#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues item 3. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem was, I was reporting at ANI and ANEW about the anon who was mucking with the RfC, and had already hit my own third revert in dealing with him/her/it, so I had to just walk away. For some reason, I cannot get any traction from admins about this anon, despite a) proven sockpuppetry, b) well-diffed 3RR violation (after being warned), c) pointy RfC disruption, d) false aspersion-casting, etc. The message being sent is "as long as you keep jumping around from IP address to IP address, you can violate all policies with impunity". I can't recall ever seeing an anon being allowed to get away with this much for so long.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's how I see it.

1. You made a legitimate post on a discussion page.
2. Somebody else altered that post to change its meaning, contrary to WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning".
3. That change in meaning could be construed as vandalism.
4. WP:3RR has a specific exemption for vandalism (no. 4 "reverting obvious vandalism")

So I think that you could legitimately have reverted more than three times, provided that each time you restored your post to the form that it had prior to the edits by that IP user, and that in your edit summary you stated something like please do not alter the meaning of my post, see [[WP:TPO]]. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Decimal Day.

Decimal Day occurred in quite a few countries across the Commonwealth, not only in the U.K. and Ireland. - (101.98.104.241 (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC))

Yes, but the scope of the article is the UK and Ireland. If you want to broaden its scope, please propose it on the article's talk page, Talk:Decimal Day. Such a proposal is unlikely to succeed, since we already have a general article, covering Australia and the others, at Decimalisation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Issues raised by {{Infobox UK school/doc}}

I have been working on this one, attempting to integrate a pushpin map. Firstly, I need to experiment with {{Infobox UK school/sandbox}} as {{Infobox UK school}} is correctly locked. The map works, for Smithdon High School as all we need to see is where in Norfolk the campus is. The parameter Norfolk calls File:Norfolk UK location map.svg map and the pushpin is fine. The parameter United_Kingdom Norfolk also works and calls the same map. For the example given, Dartford Grammar School, I want to see that it is on West Hill in Dartford not that it is in Dartford, so the map File:Kent UK location map.svg is not adequate. What is the parameter I need? This get more interesting if I want to display a school in Kensington and Chelsea, as it only seems to refer to counties

I tried to get more information by asking for the fictitious county of Ken- and was given this error message Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 464: Unable to find the specified location map definition. Neither "Module:Location map/data/United_Kingdom Ken" nor "Template:Location map United_Kingdom Ken" exists.

I have uploaded a map with push pin from OSM- It is as image2 in Corelli College- the georeferencing data is embedded in the metadata using the {{OpenStreetMap}} template- but how do we make the link? I started reading the documentation from {{Location map}} and from there I followed the hare- {{Location map/Creating a new map definition}} and convinced myself I had lost it... I have never written a module and the work really does seem excessive. We have thousands of schools to do (ofsted uses a 6 digit index!).

The other two interesting problems relate to the related {{Infobox UK school/doc}} file seems to be called by both {{Infobox UK school}} and {{Infobox UK school/sandbox}}! I have been working on Infobox UK school/doc and not on the uncalled Infobox UK school/sandbox/doc. Am I missing something here or is this a Wikimedia feature?

Then there is the {{Parameter names example}} run with _template = Infobox UK school/sandbox which throws a lua message.

The aim of the exercise is to make the documentation describe the actual code and then persuage other editors to give this a go. So if you have time I would be grateful if you could explain to me what I am doing wrong. Somewhere in the snowstorm of missing and incomplete information- I read that push-pin maps are also implemented for {{Infobox_GB_station }}. Missed you yesterday- snow indeed- we had rail-replacement buses. ClemRutter (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The location map expert is Nilfanion (talk · contribs).

It's normal for a Template:Xxx/doc page to be shared by both Template:Xxx and Template:Xxx/sandbox.

There were no buses in southern Oxfordshire, there were also no trains out of Didcot in an area bounded by Oxford, Reading and Swindon. If there had been rail replacement buses, they would have had to use the A34 - which was blocked in several places. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd bought in extra mince pies to cope with an influx of refugees. :) ClemRutter (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Template_talk:Place_name_disambiguation#Edit_request_-_switch_-_categories

Template_talk:Place_name_disambiguation#Edit_request_-_switch_-_categories - can you help? 213.39.185.11 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A new one needs your attention

Hi again R. User:Pataki Márta is now in the cat. It is fully protected so if you can perform the edit needed to get it out that will be appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I did a WP:NULLEDIT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As ever many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 16:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Election summary party

Sorry to bother you Redrose but could you tidy the table at said template like you did here please? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In what way? What's wrong with it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Formatting. The template skeleton does not use |class=wikitable.--Nevé–selbert 00:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Please see Fine Gael leadership election, 2017#Result, for an example.--Nevé–selbert 10:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Why are you unable to edit the article yourself? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I would, though I might mess things up.--Nevé–selbert 00:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I already saw it, several times... my watchlist includes not only WT:Categorizing redirects but also WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates; WT:Categorization; WT:Overcategorization and WT:Redirect. You should be wary of WP:CANVAS accusations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. Hope all is well with you and yours! Yes, I knew there would be some redundancy, especially with those editors who have multiple coverages. I can assure you and anyone who would accuse that I have not nor would I ever post notifications "with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". I went through the talk pages of several appropriate template and project pages, and I stayed well within the parameters located in the Appropriate notification section of that canvassing guideline. I did notify many editors as can be seen in my contributions; however, I had no idea how any of them would !vote. Happy Holidays!  Paine  09:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

For an object lesson in how to use harvnb, have a barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I admired your concise and precise rendering of the Hendry Report citation at East West Rail Link so much that I've copied it to my User Page for future reference! John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Banavie railway station

Hello Redrose64, I accidentally made some alterations to Banavie railway station - would you mind reverting it as I may just create further problems?Rosser Gruffydd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rosser1954: Do you mean these edits? Towards the upper right there is an "undo" link; click that, enter an edit summary like "reverting my edits", and save. Reverting yourself is not a crime. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

About my rfc

Your message

Taribuk, you do not get to WP:OWN this page. You started a WP:RFC, and no matter how good or bad it is, everybody gets the chance to comment; you might not like what they say, but you do not have the right to hide other's posts

I am hiding nothing, just separating trolling, false disqualifications, personal attacks (i.e. WP:HOUNDING) from a constructive discussion. Collapsing a text is not equal to hiding it. Whoever wants to see the collapsed text can do it anytime.--Taribuk (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Taribuk: The point about WP:RFC is that it is an open invitation for anybody to comment. Except for other people's comments that have violated WP:TPG, you do not have the right to filter anything that other people have posted, unless one or more of the criteria laid down at WP:TPO apply. You certainly do not have the right to call anybody else a "troll" or a "hound". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
	Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for everything, especially introducing me to relevant editors. Have a lovely christmas. Whispyhistory (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow... above and beyond

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		What can I say, you could have left a message letting me know I had created a mess, and politely asked me to clean it up. You could have simply asked me to get my head out of my ass. There are dozens, hundreds of things you could have done. But you. You. You went and politely, silently cleaned up my mess. It's ironic, but Certes had pointed out the error to me... but he was virtually the last person whose talk page I had posted on. Today was an incredibly busy day for me, and when I just now went to fix all those errors... low and behold, you'd already done it. Wow. I am in awe. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Onel5969 TT me 00:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: It's strange, but every year, somebody (a different person each time) sends out a chrismas message with markup errors that aren't apparent when sent, but which cause the next post to the same talk page to appear damaged. Usually the problem is an imbalance in <div>/</div> pairs, or an unclosed table. I try to identify the source (usually a template or user-space subpage) and fix that, in this case I couldn't identify it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, it was because I didn't put the template close on its own line at the end. But again, thanks for that effort. One of my goals on WP is NOT to make work for other editors, so it was very embarrassing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That part I know, it was the basis of most of my fixes, such as this one. Your message looks like a WP:SUBSTituted template, but I can't find the original. What I refer to is fixes like this one from three years ago, which I made after I found that a number of pages that had been given {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} were sometimes broken. I can't find the template that you were substing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Here's another case. Luckily, it has {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} so I can track down that stray </noinclude>. It seems that Corkythehornetfan (talk · contribs) added an extra <noinclude>...</noinclude> pair in this edit - and these tags cannot be nested. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheSandDoctor (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

From my family in the great white north to yours, whereever they may be. If you celebrate a different holiday, I wish you a merry & happy one. At the very least, happy Festivus! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edits

You reverted my edits to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 161 and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 140, which is fine as long as you have a solution to the CS1 errors the text was causing. I'm looking forward to learning from your solution.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 13:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Those errors are intentional. They are demonstrations of problems where people asked for advice to fix. Should fixing these archived discussions be necessary, it can be done in better ways than by hiding the whole thing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 21:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Updates on 'Stafford Station'

Hi,

Where you listed the 'Wkikipedia is not a timetable' it is worth noting that the so called 'Timetable' I have listed is a timetable which provides infomation about extra services which are extra to the general services which run. As there is only a limited ammount of these services, then it is completely acceptable for these services to be listed, as per the rules and guidlines of Wikipedia.

Further more, the station facilities section is listed in many other station pages, and it is right for the main station of Staffordshire to have a complete and large Wikipedia article, which includes all aspects of service.

You also removed infomation about the rail replacement bus services, which was a mistake on your part.

Please refrain from making changes before reading the rules fully.

Have a happy new year George — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.213.67 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from re-adding material that is not just unsourced (see WP:V) but also goes against the conventions that have been agreed over a period of years. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a repository of summarised general information which is not necessarily complete or up to date. It is not necessary for us to give train times. It is not even desirable, for the simple fact that train times are periodically revised and it would be irresponsible for us to pass out inaccurate information about when and where railway services run. The train operating companies have a legal responsibility to keep the timetable information on their websites accurate; we do not have any such responsibility.

WP:NOTTIMETABLE is clear; consider these three sentences:

Distinguish between stating, for example, that a station is served by a certain number of trains per hour, and specifying the times of those trains.

Articles on stations could include information about their facilities and amenities, but providing a listing of every ordinary or mundane facility may be considered excessive.

If the station has a shopping centre attached, tell us this; there is no need to specify the shops.

Rail replacement buses are laid on at short notice and are short-term. We have even less of a responsibility to describe these.

My name is not George. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year

I wish you a fantastic new year 😀 Whispyhistory (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Eaglescliffe railway station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to North Eastern Railway

Heighington railway station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to North Eastern Railway

North Road railway station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to North Eastern Railway

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Rounding

Hello, Redrose64 – First, let me wish you a happy, healthy year ahead in 2018! Thanks for all that you do on Wikipedia and for always being so helpful. Yesterday I was looking at the template documentation for conversion templates at Template:Convert. In the Rounding section, in the section "Rounding to a given number of significant figures", the last item says:

Setting |sigfig= is meaningless,"

and is followed by an example. Shouldn't this read "sigfig=0"? I see the zero in edit mode, but it doesn't appear. Also, I think "meaningless" should be followed by either a colon or a period/full stop.

What do you think of adding something so that the average Wikipedia reader will understand why it is meaningless? This may not be obvious to many readers.

Setting sigfig=0 is meaningless as it yields.../as the output is the same as... or something like that. Just a thought.  – Corinne (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: the line in question was added by DePiep (talk · contribs) with this edit and has remained unchanged since. I think that the intention was to indicate that the value passed through the |sigfig= parameter needs to be a positive non-zero integer; this may also be stated as it cannot be less than or equal to zero, and to a mathematician, the phrase "less than or equal to" is usually symbolised as "≤". This character is not always available, so computer languages normally use the double symbol "<=" instead, with the same meaning. If you look at DePiep's edit, that's how it's been written but in a way that does not take into account the fact that the "=" character is taken as a delimiter between parameter name and value. We might amend it to

Setting |sigfig=<=0 is meaningless

which looks clunky; or even to

Setting |sigfig=n where n<=0 is meaningless

But I do agree that it should be amended. The full stop is debatable, since it's a sentence fragment. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for looking into it. I agree that a period/full stop is probably not the best punctuation there. Maybe a colon would be better. Regarding what to put, for your first alternative, is there a way to hide the < that appears before the equals sign? (You know I know next to nothing about templates; I just thought something was missing there. I'll have to leave the decision of what to put there up to you or someone else.)  – Corinne (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the < is intentional, since if there was an equals sign alone, that would merely discourage the use of zero. Compare the parameter for rounding, which allows positive integers for a fixed number of figures after the decimal point, zero for no decimal places - and also allows negative integers for rounding to whole multiples of ten, 100, 1000 etc. Consider these demonstrations, using the example from Template:Convert#Round to a given number of significant figures: |sigfig=:

• {{convert|1200|ft|m|2}} → 1,200 feet (365.76 m)
• {{convert|1200|ft|m|1}} → 1,200 feet (365.8 m)
• {{convert|1200|ft|m|0}} → 1,200 feet (366 m)
• {{convert|1200|ft|m|-1}} → 1,200 feet (370 m)
• {{convert|1200|ft|m|-2}} → 1,200 feet (400 m)

Some people might assume that since negative values are permitted for the number of decimal places, they would also be permitted for the number of significant figures. We need to discourage negative values for |sigfig=. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I agree. Don't you think it would help readers to have it spelled out, something like "zero or less than zero", not just <0 or ≤?  – Corinne (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Amended. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

engrailed (gene)

Hello, Redrose64 – I was just looking at the latest edit to engrailed (gene), and I was surprised to see an uncapitalized article title. Then I remembered seeing this quite a while ago, and upon re-reading the article remembered that the article makes a distinction between engrailed as a gene and "Engrailed" as a protein, so I guess the lower-case engrailed is important. However, I wonder now, as I did then, why the heading of the talk page has "engrailed" capitalized. Shouldn't the talk page match the article title? Can you fix this?  – Corinne (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You have asked me before, see User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 17#engrailed (gene) also User talk:Apokryltaros/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 2#engrailed (gene).

The default behaviour for all pages is that the first letter of a page title is uppercased; you need special code to get different behaviour: in this case it's the line

{{DISPLAYTITLE:''engrailed'' (gene)}}

near the top. When viewing a diff, code that modifies the title display is not actioned, so it shows with a capitalised first letter and no italics.

Regarding talk pages; as I noted last October, a modified article title will not cause a matching modification to the talk page title. This means that the talk page needs special code to get its title modified, and we rarely do that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Here we are, with a hopefully happy new year coming up for both of us, another holiday season coming to a close and a learning process that continues. I have learned so much from you over the years, much of which you don't even know about because I just quietly learned by example. So this is in the spirit of letting you know about one of the many times I've been helped by your acumen.

Today, when I came across the RM at Talk:Sarah Huckabee Sanders and saw that an Rfc notice had been placed there in addition to the RM, I started to remove the Rfc template but then hesitated. I wondered if the bot would pick up on the removal and automatically remove the talk page from Rfc lists, or should the Rfc first be "officially closed" before removal. And now, thanks to you, I've learned that the bot in this case does not need its hand to be held. It removed the discussion from the Rfc lists less than an hour after you removed the Rfc template. So thank you once again for yet another lesson on and of Wikipedia!

I hope your New Year is not just "Happy", but also Stellar and Golden. I can think of no one who deserves it more.  Paine  20:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been observing the behaviour of Legobot (talk · contribs) in relation to RfCs (it does several other tasks too) for over two years now. It has a number of quirks and bugs, most of which may be worked around - although some people won't believe me. For several functions related to RfCs, I have determined the minimum necessary outside change. The main thing to remember is: RfC listings like WP:RFC/BIO etc. are built by the bot, it is pointless for anybody to attempt to alter them since such edits will be reverted silently.

This is because the bot works by generating a whole fresh set of listing pages once an hour based upon what it "knows" to be the correct information to include, and then pastes these over whatever happens to be the current versions, and saves the new versions. If there is no difference, it's essentially a WP:NULLEDIT and no action is logged in the page history. It has the upside that any vandalism to the RfC listings will be undone within the hour. The bot determines what it "knows" to be the correct information based on current transclusions of the {{rfc}} template (n.b. this is oversimplified but it conveys the general idea), so if you want to trigger the bot into some action, the thing to do is to go to the page where the RfC is actually being conducted, and work on the appropriate transclusion or the page text that follows it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I love it – let's all gang up on the bot! Seriously, I think I would have instead proposed moving the templates to {{rfctop}} and {{rfcbottom}}. I don't close many RFCs; however if I did close them regularly, I would use a copy/paste method of doing so like I do when I close RMs. And knowing this problem with the bot, I would just use the redirects in the copy/paste stage to keep you from having to follow the bot around to fix its screwups. Anyway, you're the most of the most from coast to coast to coast, Redrose64!  Paine  01:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem with moving them to {{rfctop}}/{{rfcbottom}} is that they would still have begun with the same five-character sequence that is causing the trouble. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

For some reason I thought that eliminating the space after the five would make a diff. Guess not.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Northern fleet table

Hi. As a UK railways person, do you have an opinion on whether Coradia175 is correct here? Do we have a standard for listing BR classes in a table? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) 20:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC). reminder on 17:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I take it you don’t care either way then? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comms) 03:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I should not be considered sole judge and jury. It's a WT:UKRAIL matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

LM to WMR

Tried to make edits to a few stations that were managed by London Midland to the new brand West Midlands Railway. Did not realise that they should be listed under the operator WMT not the brand WMR, and I'm sorry for editing it incorrectly - however I was disappointed by the negative comments with all of the edit reversions as I was only trying to improve the accuracy of the pages, it's hardly like the edits were malicious. htchngs (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Htchngs: When a source is dated 2015, it cannot support a claim that services are operated by West Midlands Trains, which did not exist back then. You need to ensure that claims about current events are supported by up-to-date sources, per the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I appreciate that it is unsourced, but it is going against common sense to revert those edits, as you and I know they are correct. We all know that London Midland no longer operates the franchise. As you are the expert, I would suggest you find a source and edit it to your standards if you are not comfortable with newbies trying to improve those pages themselves. htchngs (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to find a source, not mine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Go on. Actually read the link you sent. 'If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.' Do you think the material is verifiable? Or are you still in the deluded mindset that London Midland are operating the franchise? htchngs (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

When you have a moment

Happy 2018 R. Talk:Ernst Rothauser/attribution and User:Garzfoth/Draft:Mixed Amphetamine Salts have shown up in our old friend Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I have tried null edits on both but they are still there. Anything you can do to help will be appreciated. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Ernst Rothauser/attribution is exactly the same problem as described at User talk:Redrose64#New one for Talk:History of computing in Romania: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) has not yet fixed {{Attribution history}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I got that now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding User:Garzfoth/Draft:Mixed Amphetamine Salts, the problem is that the page is transcluding the whole of the article Amphetamine - seven times over. I think that Garzfoth (talk · contribs) is attempting to transclude seven different sections from that article, but but I don't think that they understand how Selective transclusion works. Not only is this maxing out the template limits, it's also bringing in the protection template from that page so putting that user page in several problem categories: Pages with reference errors; Pages where template include size is exceeded; Pages with script errors; Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

but I don't think that they understand how Selective transclusion works is incorrect. They coppied (with attribution) code from Adderall, which worked at the time but was broken by Seppi333's December edits to amphetamine which changed the transclusion method that was used in a non-backward compatible way. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes Jo-Jo Eumerus and Pppery and thanks Redrose64 for providing the pings and links so they could track things down. MarnetteD|Talk 04:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox UK school

Template:Infobox UK school has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox school. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Steven (Editor): Why notify me? I did not create either template, nor do I have any major edits to them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: May have been a mistake, may not have looked at your edits to the templates properly and therefore notified you, sorry! :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

GWR steam rail motors running round

You reverted my edit on the GWR steam rail motors page. Please see the Talk:GWR steam rail motors page if you want to comment on my intention to restore my edit. 81.141.186.58 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Helmut Krausnick

Hello, Redrose64 – I just finished copy-editing Helmut Krausnick, and I went to the talk page to add the template indicating that I had completed the copy-edit, and I couldn't figure out where to place the GOCE template. Can you take a look at it and tell me? Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Corinne: Anywhere between the |1= and the |blp=no, outside the four existing banner templates, preferably on a line of its own. Personally I'd put it after the {{WikiProject Military history}}. Just don't put it after the |blp=no whether on the same line or a new line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Woolwich railway station

Hello ! We really need to sort out the incorrect information on what's been called "Woolwich Railway Station" between us, as the original poster (appreciate it's not yourself) has posted some incredibly confusing, misleading and plain wrong information and pictures here.

The *new* Crossrail station is to be called Woolwich Arsenal, and it will be on the Elizabeth Line (aka Crossrail), when it opens in December 2018. The is in addition to the current (and very old) National Rail station 200 metres south, which can be found on Google Maps on Vincent Road, in Woolwich town centre. It is for access to SouthEastern train services. SouthEastern is a ToC that has nothing whatsover to to with the Elizabeth Line/Crossrail/Woolwich Crossrail/Elizabeth Line station. The SouthEastern national rail station shares station space (but *not* platforms) with the DLR system, which has only been operational in Woolwich relatively recently (within the last 10-12 years). The DLR is independent of both the Elizabeth Line/Crossrail link, and National Rail services. There is one shared entrance to DLR and National Rail stations (though little used for DLR services), and a major entrance for DLR services which 99% of commuters use, which can with some amount of effort be used to access national rail services.

We also need to make clear what Crossrail is: what is currently operational is being run by TfL, NOT national rail. Although Crossrail the runs alongside a few stations that also have a National Rail link, it is not part of the National Rail system, and will not be once it is fully operational. Details are here to back up my claim on the TfL site - about as definitive a source as could be asked for !: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/june/the-future-of-cross-london-travel-arriv

Finally, the photo(s) included in the article are totally misleading, as they are of the Crossrail station box, still (quite obviously) currently under construction by Berkeley Homes and Crossrail. They are also quite old - the station box at ground level now has a partial brick cladding and a roof and is visually half completed. However, it is not operational until December 2018, and is not currently accessible to the public - it's still a secured building site. Contrast this with the DLR and National Rail Woolwich station, which is open and can be used, and has been for at least the last four years to the best of my knowledge. It should be obvious from this picture that this does is not an operational station, and checking the nationalrail.co.uk site shows plenty of service from Woolwich national rail railway station (run by SouthEastern). I can provide an up to date station picture on Monday, if required, for both DLR/National Rail, and (to be) Elizabeth Line/Crossrail stations.

I'm keen to correct this article as I pass the new station's building site twice every day, and it irks me as much as I'm sure it does you that this information is completely wrong. Articles like this really bring Wikipedia into disrepute, as they can be checked by anyone on the ground to be false, and the information presented here most definitely is. If I was being generous, I'd say the original poster was a little confused about their terminology.

Happy to post up to date pictures of all 2/3 (depending on how you treat the DLR/overground), to show that they're indeed different stations, and to take your more experienced lead as an editor on this, as I post very little to Wikipedia, but when I do, I like it to be right ! Please let me know what exactly you'd like me to do to resolve this problem - no rush and I only occasionally check in from reality myself.

Many thanks, Jonreade (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Jon.

@Jonreade: This is the sort of thing that belongs on the article's talk page. Per WP:MULTI, having started a discussion on the article's talk page you may also inform any WikiProjects that might be interested (such as WT:UKRAIL) but don't forget to link to the primary discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing closed discussions

Please do not modify discussions which are closed and clearly say "DO NOT MODIFY IT", not only does this violate policy, but it is misleading. Not to mention the original comment was removed in the first place as it was off-topic and irrelevant to the conversation, if you wish to harass me, please post it on my talk page where I will swiftly report it to the administrators. Good Day. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@ChieftanTartarus: (i) I restored my comment which you had removed contrary to WP:TPO. (ii) No policy was violated. (iii) It was highly relevant. (iv) It was not harassment. (v) At least one administrator is aware. But if you like, WP:ANI is elsewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64:Stop being so stubborn and admit you are in the wrong. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC) EDIT "@ChieftanTartarus: Please stop writing comments that amount to "I'm right and you're all wrong", that is not the way we do things around here. We have certain core policies, amongst which there is that of verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)" I quoted two sources, and in case you are not aware, they both argued in my favour, furthermore, the comment stated is personally attacking my edit style, and therefore I take offence, how about you focus on 'verifiability' instead of making a consensus with people who haven't bothered to read sources. If I have two sources, it doesn't matter how many Wikipedians say I am right or wrong, the sources dictate what is on Wikipedia not the editors. (I am no longer watching this thread). ChieftanTartarus (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally WP:TPO states I have the right to remove your comments on the grounds of off-topic discussion. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Take me to ANI then. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that editors were meant to act in a mature and appropriate manner. I'm not getting into a childish argument of 'he did this, he did that', the issue itself has resolved, so you should drop it too. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching issues re: RfC

It is unfortunately easy for me to be too eager to be helpful (and authoritative) on here without the requisite experience. I had assumed from my limited exposure and how the examples are worded in WP:RFC that a question was required, and that brief=simple. It would have been better to just point to that page and/or copy the example directly. It's now clear that the RfC statement having a signature is quite an important part that I missed. I actually knew I had omitted it when reviewing the comment, and realized that I could've just copied the example, but left it as is - not quite sure why in retrospect. Thanks again. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Horrific list style

Care to explain how a list-style can be "horrific"? Or why you find it necessary to say antagonizing things inside an edit summary, when you could have easily just said: fixing listgap error? Interested to hear this one, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: When there is list markup like this:

*'''Support'''. I strongly support the second point. ...
:*Regarding the first point, ...
:*I think that ...
::*When I read this RfC, ...
:::*I've ...
::::*Thanks. ...
:::::*Checking back, ...
*'''Support'''

it creates all sorts of accessibility issues: there are two unordered lists, with a definition list between them. That definition list contains one unordered list and one definition list, which itself contains one unordered list and one definition list ... (recurse)

When lists are nested, the thing to do is to copy the markup from the entry above, and add one symbol (asterisk, colon or hash) to the right hand end of the list markup that you have copied. Something like this:

*'''Support'''. I strongly support the second point. ...
*:Regarding the first point, ...
*:I think that ...
*::When I read this RfC, ...
*:::I've ...
*::::Thanks. ...
*:::::Checking back, ...
*'''Support'''

If this simple rule is observed, the accessibility issues are much improved since we now have a single unordered list, into which are nested a number of co-nested definition lists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Point du Sable

Hello, Redrose64 – I have just begun a copy-edit of Jean Baptiste Point du Sable in response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and I'd like to ask you about something I noticed when I first opened the article in edit mode. Right after the first few words of the lead, in what looks like an extended reference or reference plus note, I see "nowiki" used around single square brackets several times. I don't recall ever seeing anything like this. Is this necessary, and, if so, what purpose does it serve?  – Corinne (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I just finished copy-editing the article. When I went to add the standard GOCE template toward the end of the WikiProject banners on the talk page, the banner shell didn't look like it usually does, so I changed it, then added the GOCE template, but now the "Archives", which appear below the GOCE template in edit mode, don't appear. Is that the place where "Archives" are supposed to appear, or do they usually go above the banner shell?  – Corinne (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags were superfluous. Their purpose is to make characters used for wiki markup display literally instead of being interpreted in a special way. For example, I could do this [[Jean Baptiste Point du Sable]] and it's not interpreted as a link. The only markup use of single square brackets is to make an external link, and in such cases the first token after the opening square bracket needs to be a URL, like this example; if it's not a URL, the square brackets are displayed literally, like this [example]. When we write [Point du Sable's daughter] the first token (Point) is not a URL and so there is no need for the nowiki tags, so I removed them.

In this edit you removed the |collapsed=yes parameter, which Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) has restored. As I have mentioned before, the GOCE template should go on a line of its own, either immediately before the first existing WikiProject banner, in between any two existing WikiProject banners, or immediately after the last existing WikiProject banner.

When an archives box is narrow and floated right, it's normally last so that it can sit neatly alongside the table of contents, if one were present - see for example the top of this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Faringdon

Some advice please? As Farringdon station is about to become very important, it seems to me that we ought to look at Farringdon railway station to see whether it really is appropriate that that name remain occupied by a disused station. IMO, the disused station should be moved to Farringdon (Oxfordshire) railway station and the name either redirect to London Faringdon or at least become a disambiguation article.

So first question: is it an uphill battle? Second, where is the best place for an RFC because I doubt that talk:Faringdon railway station is really appropriate! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Which disused station, and why Oxfordshire? Farringdon railway station is a redir to Farringdon station and has been for over fourteen years. If you wish to repurpose that long-standing redirect that has a whole bunch of inward links, it's a WP:RFD matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I assume Friedman means Faringdon railway station. If so, it already has a copious number of hatnotes in the unlikely event that someone landing on it by mistake really thinks they're reading about the London tube station. I'd strongly oppose any attempt to redirect Faringdon railway station to Farringdon railway station, which I believe is what you're suggesting; it would open a floodgate of people wanting to redirect Castletown railway station→Castleton railway station, Abington railway station→Abingdon railway station etc on the grounds that they might be what people are looking for. (The claim that Farringdon station is about to become very important is questionable at best. It's about to change from being an inconveniently-sited interchange between three tube lines and the mainline to an inconveniently-sited interchange between four tube lines and the mainline; we're not talking Birmingham New Street here. If anything, even after Crossrail opens it will be considerably less significant than when the Widened Lines were at their peak, given that it no longer serves as the goods railhead for Smithfield.) ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Just as well I put a toe in the water instead of diving straight in! The most obvious problem is that I can't tell my Faringdons from my Farringdons. But either way I see that the idea will get an icy reception so I shall forget about it. Thank you, both. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

whites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olPstpyHZt4Italic text

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.211.168 (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I refuse to follow YouTube spam links. If you are posting this here in connection with your recent edits to White's, you also need to read WP:SPS and WP:DAILYMAIL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I did leave a reliable source, in fact I left two. One is what is called real evidence, which is video of the incident. The other is a link to the daily mail, which is a national newspaper which reported the event. I would refer you to both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.211.168 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Youtube is not reliable, because it is a self-published source. The Daily Mail is not reliable, per consensus at WP:DAILYMAIL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

your hysterical posts

I find your postings quite hysterical

You don't have to 'follow' any youtube link, you simply have to view it for the purposes of your obsession with 'proof' Secondly, youtube links are not 'spam' and you have no proof that it is spam, as you yourself have indicated you haven't bothered to view it

I suspect you're defending this whites male safe space for political reasons, and I shall continue to repost over and over again. You will just have to deal with that.

The daily mail is a national newspaper in britain and is therefore classes as a 'reliable source'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.211.168 (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Utter rubbish. Not all national newspapers are reliable (consider the Daily Star, The Sun, the Sunday Sport). See WP:IRS on how to identify reliable sources. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Can I remind 88.98.211.168 to sign their comments after they have written them as per WP:TPYES, as for this argument over whether the daily mail is a reliable source or not, the consensus of the RfC about the issue clearly states that the Daily Mail should not be used as a source on contentious issues. YouTube is self published, therefore not a reliable source, I could upload a video on the above issue for example, you cannot then use that as a source. Spamming this talk page will simply result in you being blocked. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ChieftanTartarus, you are quite right about the Daily Mail. But YouTube is really not all "self published". There are very many videos, of bands or TV programmes, for example, published officially by the record company or broadcaster, etc. We should not provide links to YT videos that we have good reason to suspect may be in breach of copyright, but everything else is a matter of editorial judgement, as far as I know. I think that's quite regardless of whether something is "self-published" or not. I also think "reliability" is not the only consideration on which to judge something on YT - we can offer links to musical works to illustrate musical style, for example, or to recitations of poems to show the use of rhyme, or to news reports of significant national events, etc.? Just my take on it. But I think the IP would be well-advised to take further advice at Wikipedia Talk:RS. One of the main problems with raw YT links is that there is no indication what they contain, so a reader cannot make an informed judgement on whether to click on them or not. And of course, threatening to repeatedly post unwanted material on someone's Talk page is really just trolling. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've taken it to RSN, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Google docs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has been protected to prevent the IP address from editing it. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I noticed that Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) has WP:30/500 protected it, despite the fact that the recent edits to add the unsourced/badly sourced content were all from unregistered user(s). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Too bad you did not discuss it with me. Slip of the mouse. Changed to semi. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Wings Greatest

You seem to be stepping on multiple editors' toes. Just a calm observation, but maybe you should calm down a bit. I won't lose any sleep regarding your reverting external links away from an alphabetical order like I had created them, at least they all still remain (albeit in what may appear to the new visitor or casual observer as a conglomerate format).--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Genuine best regards, by the way. At least you are a diligent editor.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: They weren't external links, they were categories. The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically shows that there is no consensus to sort categories alphabetically. WP:CATDEF shows that eponymous categories should be first, then "the most essential, significant categories" should be next. Considering Wings Greatest directly, the questions to ask are:

1. Is there an eponymous category? No - Category:Wings Greatest does not exist.
2. What is it? A compilation album.
3. Who is it by? Wings (band).

Thus, Category:Wings (band) compilation albums should really be first (it's presently second, after Category:1978 greatest hits albums), but should not be last. Considerations like "who produced it" or "where was it recorded" are of lesser importance than the fact that, as stated in the article's very first sentence, Wings Greatest is a compilation album by Wings. The fact that it was released in 1978, although noted in the infobox, isn't mentioned at all in the lead prose at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand, Redrose64. I did look at your edit a second time after writing this as to just how the categories are sorted (hence the second message). You did seem a little blunt in your revert explanation to me. Never mind. All the Best!.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) Cheers! —PaleoNeonate – 17:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Another (talk page gnome). Thanks for all your efforts. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Help fixing my error

Hello again. I thought I added the correct template at Wikipedia:Project namespace but it is still in the category so I must have misread things. When you have a moment your help would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

On a different note thanks for getting the book cover situation at The Three Doctors straightened out. The thing that still cracks me up when I see 1979 cover is the fact that the illustrator used a pic of Pat as Salamander from Enemy of the World :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem at WP:PRJ was not the absence of {{pp-semi-indef}} (absent pp templates never populate the category) but is the presence of the {{pp-move-indef}} that was added by Clpo13 (talk · contribs) in this edit - the page has never been protected for moves. The recent protection set semi-protection for both edits and moves - which as I have mentioned before, makes not a bit of difference to moves, since unconfirmed users cannot move pages. So the edit summary "Page-move vandalism" is mysterious.

The file description page at File:Novel cover of Doctor Who and the Three Doctors.jpg gives the artist as Chris Achilleos - it wasn't, that's not even his style. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Whoops. I meant to add full move protection to that page. It's been fixed now. clpo13_(talk) 23:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh crap. I just realised, I responded here despite the discussion ban imposed upon me in the section above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yikes R. HeeHee. I have always found your responses to be level headed - even if I have made the same error as previous times. Thanks for all your help. MarnetteD|Talk 23:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This website lists Jeff Cummins as the illustrator of the reprint. It also mentions the "and the" being added to the title. I sure do like seeing those 1970s and 80s prices :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Mine is "Third impression 1979", priced 75p. This was apparently published on 25 October 1979 and I see from my records that I bought mine on 17 November 1979 - just over three weeks later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That is great R. When the show took off here in the early 80s the Dr Who Fan Club of America had a 10% off deal with the ABC Book Store for its members. A fond memory is my monthly drive from Greeley to that store to pick up the next issue of Dr Who Monthly Magazine and the one or two books that Target had released. I do still have them but they are are all in storage so I can't check the prices for you. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Null edit needed

Hello again R. Wikipedia:Abuse response/76.178.67.45 was moved so t needs a null edit. As it is fuly [rptected zI can't do it so, when you have a moment, your help would be appreciated. I hope that you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 18:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have a faulty keyboard. Anyway,  nulledited --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a new keyboard and I haven't gotten used to how different it is from my last one AND I keep forgetting to look at what I've typed to see how messed up it is :-) Thanks for the fix. MarnetteD|Talk 20:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Another one needs help

Goguryeo has shown up in the cat. As it is fully protected and can't get at it. OTOH I did check whether there were any booboos before I hit the publish changes button :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's fully protected, but it had {{pp-semi}} - fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet another

Hello again. This redirect has been fully protected and has shown up in the category. If you can apply the needed change it will be appreciated. OTOH the protection expires on Sunday so the situation may have resolved itself by the time you see this. I hope you enjoy the opening weekend of this years Six Nations! MarnetteD|Talk 02:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This one was because Amortias (talk · contribs) had used the wrong template - as I have explained several times, the {{pp}} templates shouldn't be used on redirects. Instead we have {{R fully protected}} (and similar), which may be used alone; or there is the automatic code that is built into {{Redirect category shell}}. These edits will fix it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. As it was fully protected I would not have been able to add the correct template. I just saw the thread at VPT that you started and am interested to see what the final outcome will be. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Photos to Bahamas page

A page for sister engine Leander has got a photo section and I was just adding some photos which arent linked elsewhere on wikipedia, the LMS livery photo isnt linked anywhere else on wikipedia to other articles. Please stop removing my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Your work was likely removed because you did not prove that the images you have provided are in the domain (i.e are not copyrighted), additionally, I noticed that Redrose told you over on your talk page not to use sources which are unreliable (including Facebook, which is self-published). I would also like to remind you to follow talkpage rules and sign your comments so that editors know who is writing what. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: Just because one article has a gallery is not a reason to have a gallery on other pages. The article LMS Jubilee Class 5596 Bahamas has a small box near the bottom, exactly like this one here; the code to generate that is {{Commons category|LMS Jubilee Class 5596 Bahamas}}. It gives access to all of the photos that you are using to create this unnecessary gallery. I have directed you to WP:IG: have you read it? The paragraph beginning "However, Wikipedia is not an image repository." is particularly relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Galleries in articles, again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Edward Watkin

Hi, I've been having a bit of a session today on Mancunian stuff, which is what led me to Edward Watkin. I think I can do quite a lot of improvement to that but I was initially just cleaning it up. I don't have any particular objection to this but I am also baffled by all the CS1, CS2 type of thing and simply stick with CITEVAR plus whatever I've learned from Malleus/Eric over the years. I gather that the change was needed for consistency but I'm not sure where the consistency lies. The citation styles were all over the place and I thought I brought them into alignment based on the style used for the most-cited source. Did I miss something? I was under the impression that the ref=harv parameter was unnecessary but I suspect you think otherwise? - Sitush (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: Citation Style 2 uses {{citation}} which formats the citation with the various items of information (author, date, title etc.) separated with commas, thus:

• Goffin, Magdalen (2005), The Watkin path: an approach to belief, Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 978-1-84519-128-3

By contrast, Citation Style 1 usess templates like {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, etc. which format the citation with the various items of information separated with full stops, thus:

• Goffin, Magdalen (2005). The Watkin path: an approach to belief. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1-84519-128-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Other than punctuation, they're basically the same; but using both punctuation styles in the same article is an inconsistency. This inconsistency started with this edit by Cnbrb (talk · contribs) more than four years ago, following which there were four CS2 and one CS1 template, so it's not your fault. Much has changed since then, so I decided to take the majority view based on the current version. I counted them up, and found that both before and after your edits there were five instances of {{citation}} versus twelve instances of the CS1 templates, so I altered the fewer to match the greater. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, bugger. I didn't notice the punctuation differences. Sorry about that. Thanks for the extended explanation also, which should clarify things for me. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I forgot to explain |ref=harv. It's built into {{citation}} but needs to be manually added to CS1 templates. Its purpose is to create anchors for links from {{sfn}} templates; this link should take you to the Goffin 2005 ref in the article - if the |ref=harv is omitted, that link takes you to the top. See WP:SRF#Inline citations, particularly the paragraph after the last example. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

My 2013 self can only apologise for introducing such inconsistencies into the citation style. My 2018 self, however, is really not that bothered, and hopes you will enjoy adjusting the article to your preferred style. Have fun, folks. Cnbrb (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I understand that on Wikipedia as elsewhere there are various citation styles but, really, I would have thought we could standardise the use of punctuation and bin the |ref=harv bit. That said, I've generally found discussions at the citation templates to be obsessive and largely unfathomable, as also with those at WP:MOS, so probably I have missed some key point. - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Mainly what happens is that every year or two, somebody suggests that all those using commas should be switched to full stops, or vice versa. Sometimes it's at the talk page for one of the templates, sometimes at the talk page for a guide to referencing, sometimes at one of the Pumps. Supports and opposes are in approximately equal proportions - result, no consensus. As for |ref=harv needing to be added manually to the CS1 templates, I never understood why it couldn't be automatic. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalisme

Kleuske Manda Langsa INews TV to iNews Makelutehg ikom News iNews Manda Vandalisme Manda Langsa ?? --125.161.104.98 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're saying, other than it's something to do with the page iNews which you have been editing. I note that you have been taken to ANI in connection with that page, and subsequently blocked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your Babel fish has fallen out. The IP is writing in perfect Golgafrinchan. nagualdesign 21:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

About removing rfc two times

Hi, I still don't understand why you removed rfc on my talk page. I was asking on my talk page for comments on websites to use for references. I really want help thats why I was posting rfc. Zafar24Talk 20:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zafar24: First off, I have not removed any of your rfcs; I have removed a {{rfc}} template, not the whole thread; and that occurred only once, so your allegation "removing rfc two times" is false. This is not the first time that you have made untrue statements about my edits, only yesterday you made false claims at Talk:Enpass#Which license this software/app belongs to?.

Anyway, the Requests for comment process is not for requesting help on user talk pages; it lasts thirty days, during which time all sorts of near-random people will be sent messages asking them to participate in a discussion about which they will probably wonder "why is this an RfC?" Before starting yet another RfC, please read WP:RFC, particularly the section "Before starting the process" and understand what the purpose of that process is.

If you need help, the page Help:Contents lists several ways of obtaining a more personal response from one or two people who specialise in helping users, not just newcomers. It is linked from the left margin, it's the first entry in the "Interaction" section. I also see that in your talk page there is the section titled "Welcome!" in which are a number of useful links, many of which indicate where to ask for help. Neither Help:Contents nor your Welcome! box indicate that Requests for comment is a means for obtaining user help. Discussions concerning the sources for an article are best discussed at the article's talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Very odd

Hello R. Yesterday a couple articles were in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. In checking the transclusions this article was the common denominator. I applied a null edits and that took care of things. Today about 20 talk pages/archived talk pages and various other pages showed up and the common tranclusion is this article. I was applying null edits and then it struck me that something fishy might be going on. I couldn't find any recent edits on the articles in question that would explain this so I stopped the null edits and left several pages in the cat so you could check to see if you could find an explanation for this. While it isn't a big deal (and I will be happy to continue with the NE's if you can't find anything) it is odd and I am wondering if someone is messing with the 'pedia. As ever thanks for your time, MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: All the pages that had been affected by this have dropped out of the cat. So there is nothing for you to track down. I'll let you know if it happens again. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Wiltshire Barnstar

		The WikiProject Wiltshire Barnstar
		For all your work on railway articles, a great benefit to the project. Moonraker (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Template on Broad Street railway station (England)

Sorry I removed the template on Broad Street railway station (England). The software/view for dab fixing doesn't make it clear it is a template & it was pointing at Kew railway station which shows up as needing disambiguation.— Rod ^talk 16:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

London Wiki

If you wish to make use of London wiki for London-related topics too obscure for Wikipedia/update relevant articles there, you are more than welcome. (If you prefer Wikipedia format, switch to 'Monobook' format.) Jackiespeel (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No thank you. I avoid Wikia for several reasons, not least of which is the objectionable amount of advertising. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Advertising doesn't appear on the Monobook setting (and there are rather too many abandoned wikis on Wikia), and I am tidying up/getting clarification on various pages on Wikipedia as a result of developments there. Shall we say Wikia suits some purposes and some people and Wikipedia others (and there can be an overlap). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In my experience, Wikia seems to have been created through a poor use of Google Translate. Articles have inconsistent spellings from paragraph to paragraph and often contradict the previous paragraph. Wikia is very unprofessional compared with Wikipedia for these reasons. I don't feel it is worth my time trawling through Wikia pages using the find and replace option simply because someone has spelt one word fifteen different ways. Wikia suits people who would like to 'practise' before they edit on Wikipedia in my opinion. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

no fish here

thank you - I had the horrible feeling there are some self referencing loop in there somewhere - (Ageing and culture) - there are also some weirdnesses, probably created when I was starting things - so thanks JarrahTree 23:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

one small problem arts and culture and social science feels like a really skewiff set to belong to - as the oldest people project took up the slack for those with limited sideways thinking for some time - the medical and biological aspects are as important in the ageing and culture area - maybe not as obvious from the title but at least a major component - maybe the project should be called just ageing? any thought appreciated JarrahTree 23:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: The two categories Category:Art and culture WikiProjects and Category:Social science WikiProjects are not set in stone - my primary aim was to prevent Category:WikiProject Ageing and culture from being listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories, which meant taking it out of itself. In so doing it's best to give it some sort of relevant parent, instead of leaving it uncategorised. Categories with names like "WikiProject ..." should all belong to one (or more) of the subcategories of Category:WikiProjects by topic:

WikiProjects by topic

Art and culture WikiProjects

Biography WikiProjects

Business and economics WikiProjects

WikiProjects by discipline

Education WikiProjects

Food and drink WikiProjects

Game-related WikiProjects

Geographical WikiProjects

Health WikiProjects

History and society WikiProjects

Law WikiProjects

Media WikiProjects

Military and warfare WikiProjects

Namespace WikiProjects

Pagetype WikiProjects

Politics WikiProjects

Science, technology, and engineering WikiProjects

Sports-related WikiProjects

Wikipedia WikiProjects

As you will see by clicking the little triangles to expand this list, there are quite a lot of them - it's a case of finding the most suitable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the trouble to explain - appreciated - cheers JarrahTree 11:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"Bad edits"

Just fyi, they weren't bad edits. When made, they fixed the dab issue which had apparently been created by another editor. Now that that edit's been reverted, my corrections are no longer valid. But thanks for the afg. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You have been inspirational Whispyhistory (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

TSS Canterbury

Hi ... I changed the redlink for the Canterbury on the Golden Arrow article to TSS Canterbury (1929) as I understand she is a TSS that we dont have a shortform template for. There is an SS Canterbury (1900) however on the Canterbury dab page that ends up at HMS Arpha. To the best of my knowledge Wikipedia does not have an article for TSS Canterbury (1929) so I will likely create a short stub/class article for her. While SS Shepperton seems represented SS Hampton does not so will probably being doing a small article for that. I then might go back and look at the Irish Sea ships again and then do some article improvement there, possibly the odd stub/start article as well. In general my intention started off doing one for the TSS Princess Maud and in passing I've sort of noticed some ship articles I'd expect to be present aren't. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC). If you review by contributions you'll note I've begun an article for the TSS Canterbury in one of my Sandboxes, currently WIP. I doubt I'll finish it this morning and I'm out the afternoon if not earlier but it will probably hit mainspace late this evening or sunday Morning.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: I carefully chose the link to resolve to SS Canterbury (1929), not so that I could use the {{ss}} template but because I was aiming for consistency - that page already has more than forty inward links, see Special:WhatLinksHere/SS Canterbury (1929). If you feel that we need a special {{tss}} template for twin-screw steamers, I suggest that you propose it at WT:SHIPS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for getting back to me. Its kind of important as to what the article should be named. I actually thought TSS stood for Turbine steam ship but according to Ship prefix you are right. The reason for its appearance on a most of the pages is that it is in the template:SR ships. I'm not actually massively into ships ... so I don't massively have a feel on such things. My feel is if the ships bell say 'TSS' as against the template:SR ships having a redlink to 'SS' then TSS should win ... but there are people at Wikiproject Ships who may have clearer reasoning. I think you are right to suggest WT:SHIPS though and thanks for your help.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

British Museum Station Endeavour edit

Moved to Talk:British Museum tube station § British Museum Station Endeavour edit

 – Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Newmarket Railway Stations

The current situation with Newmarket railway stations is clearly a mess. Just though I should give you the heads up that Newmarket (Suffolk) railway station still exists and has not been reverted by Mock wurzel soup. Not really sure how to deal with it but clearly naming the modern station Newmarket (Suffolk) railway station is ridiculous. 51.7.231.224 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This is probably best notified at WT:UKRAIL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Keeping the bots under control

Thanks for doing this. I didn't know signing below the RFC question would cause the bot to behave that way, but it's good to know. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yes, Legobot (talk · contribs) looks for the {{rfc}} template and scans onward until it reaches the first valid timestamp after that point. All of the text within this interval is assumed to be the RfC opening statement; if there is a !vote in there, it goes against WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief. Compare this version of 15:01, 12 March 2018 with this one of 11:01, 13 March 2018. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite extended confirmed protection

I did request indefinite extended confirmed protection. The page was only semi-protected and for only a short time. The semi-protection will expire on 02:05, 12 March 2018. I think the RfC should continue based on that fact. QuackGuru (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Before the protection was set, did you make the situation clear at WP:RFPP? After the prot was set, did you communicate directly with the protecting admin to ask why a lower level and shorter duration were chosen? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#List of electronic cigarette brands. I don't need to ask any admin why it was only semi-protected and a shorter duration was selected. It is usually standard to only implement semi-protection and for about 24 hours to a week. But there is a persistent high proportion of IP/new edits adding unsourced claims or unreliable company websites with the edit history showing the edit rate being low. QuackGuru (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

So if you don't want to discuss with CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs), there's really no point in asking me to step on their toes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

QuackGuru. I only used semi for several reasons. The page had never been protected before and jumping to indefinite extended confirmed protection would have been overkill. There were just two editors over 3 days which hardly requires any protection at all. Normally I would just refuse any protection on something with so little amount of vandalism. Neither of the two editors could edit through semi so why go with extended confirmed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

If the unsourced additions or company websites are added to the list once semi-protection expires then indefinite semi-protection will be a valid option. QuackGuru (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)