Jump to content

User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Stubs

Hi, I was wondering if you could create or find a way of extracting a list of stub articles created before 1 September 2004 on here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: You've created 95,563 articles in total (here are the last ten), so this query should list all of them. Unfortunately, it times out - I can query off 10,000, but not 100,000. It also doesn't seem to have an offset= parameter to the query string that might help by only querying back from a given point - i.e. &offset=20140901000001 or similar. The copyright note at the bottom names four individuals: Hedonil, Cyberpower678, TParis, X! - perhaps one of them can help to get the information. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I don't mean created by me! I didn't join formally until June 2006. I mean a way of finding the oldest articles on here which are still stubs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
In which case, sorry, I don't have access to that kind of information. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I had though the new pages had a place where you could tap in date created. I'd be interested to see the very earliest from 2001.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Special:NewPages goes back thirty days, and no more. The oldest edit which is believed to be still in existence is described at WP:UuU, which indicates that the first article created was WikiPedia. A lot of people would like to see which are the oldest pages, but unfortunately a lot of early revisions were deleted (permanent delete, not an admin's "delete") many years ago. I've never looked into the very early history in any detail - again, because I don't have either the tools or access to the data. An expert on the matter is Graham87 (talk · contribs), who has recovered many early edits, previously thought lost. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
A quick and dirty way to get this information is by checking what links to Wikipedia:Stub, because all stub templates contain a link to that page and the "what links here" feature is ordered by page ID (a higher page ID usually, but not always, means a more recently created page ... but page ID's aren't preserved during deletions). There are a few caveats with this list though; it doesn't count pages that were deleted and later restored, it may not include some pages that were history-merged, and, most importantly, Wikipedia's first 20,000 or so articles were all mass-imported into the current database by Conversion script, so the page ID's in these case are based on the page titles' positions in the alphabet when the pages were imported (e.g. "Geography of American Samoa" was then at the title "American Samoa/Geography").
To get a complete answer to this question, you'll need to ask somebody with access to the Wikimedia Labs database to do a query for you. I don't really know who or where would be the best place to ask, but Wikimedia Labs does have an IRC channel, #wikimedia-labs, and the people pinged above may be able to help. Graham87 14:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Graham. You'd think there would be some way to access all articles in order of creation from the very beginning..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: - Stub articles which were created on or before 8th September 2004
   1 -  5000
5001  - 10000
10001 - 15000
15001 - 20000
20001 - 25000
25001 - 30000
30000 - 35000
Note that these can be misleading. For example the first on the list Actrius spent frorm 2001 to 2006 as a redirect to variations on Actress, before becoming a stub.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC).

Fields Medal page

Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Rezameyqani (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rezameyqani: (1) The expiry of a protection will not alter the contents of the page. (2) I think you refer to the table at Talk:Fields Medal/Archive1#Table format (to which I added the missing {{reflist}}); this is now a RfC, and RfCs normally run for thirty days. People don't usually rush to comment on RfCs - you will find that the comments are spread out over that 30-day period. (3) No. You should wait until the RfC is over, which will be thirty days from the first timestamp, i.e. at 14:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC). It may well be that the RfC is in favour of your proposal, or it may go against, or some other version might be suggested. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
OK,Thank you for your time and patience to teach a Newbie!I'll wait until that timeRezameyqani (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks

I would just like to thank you publicly for your help and advice on my recent edits to Princes Risborough railway station.

Being a new user and contributor to Wikipedia is a little daunting, so I appreciate your help.

I was interested to see you are planning to attend this months upcoming Oxford Wikimedia meetup. I am local to Oxford, but am afraid I cannot make it this time round. Are you the organiser of this or just an attendee? I would love to learn more about contributing, so I will do my upmost to come to a future meet-up. (A pint or two just sweetens the deal)

Many thanks, Ed George talk 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! They began about two years ago, and it was Philafrenzy (talk · contribs) who organised the first two; but he moved to London in late 2012 so I took over the organisation of the Oxford meetup. It's normally third Sunday of each month, and most weekends there is a meetup somewhere in the UK, at varying frequencies. They're normally posted to the top of the watchlist (a notice beginning "Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There are forthcoming meetups in: ...") about two or three weeks in advance. There are other ways of finding out about future meetups in other parts of the country. One is by checking the list at User:Redrose64#Wikipedians I have met, or you can visit one or more of the following, and "watch" it:

Then, as events get added, you'll find out through the watchlist of the relevant site. As you noticed, the next Oxford meetup is on 21 September; after that is 19 October. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just wanted to say thanks for your help at Help talk:Table - it's really appreciated.

Number 57 16:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Doctor Who (series 7)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Doctor Who (series 7) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

St Pancras railway station

I've called a 24-hr ceasefire on the edit war. Mjroots (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Taha Zareei

Oops I actually didn't notice the time the article was created-I usually don't put AFD's for new articles. Dang I was not paying attention, sorry. Wgolf (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way-the articles I usually will put AFD's for are when the prod was deleted, older ones, ect. (Like I just put a AFD on one person who could be notable but since the user kept on deleting the prod and since it seems to be that many think you need to put a afd up instead I did that.) I don't usually do them on auotmatic though, I made a mistake by doing one earlier though ha, well thanks. Wgolf (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Wgolf: A user can't "keep on deleting the prod". Once a prod - by which I assume that you mean a {{proposed deletion/dated}}, that being the template yielded by {{subst:prod}} - has been removed from an article, it cannot be replaced, and so it can't be removed more than once. If it is removed, it becomes a WP:CONTESTED prod, and there can be no further prod on that article.
However, if you are referring to the removal of a {{prod blp/dated}}, this is not a prod, and the rules at WP:BLPPROD apply: so long as the article remains unsourced, the removal is improper - it should be reverted and the person who removed it notified. The escalating series of warning templates {{subst:uw-blpprod1}} etc. are available for this. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well other people seem to have done it after I have restored the prod that the creator has removed, so yeah. Wgolf (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Mention elsewhere

Hi Redrose, just a note to let you know I mentioned you (in a good way) in an interesting discussion at User_talk:Slambo#Infobox_parameters. I suspect that Wikipedia automatically gives you a message if a user name is mentioned, but I'm not sure, so this is the non-automated version. Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

London86

Hello Redrose, could you add London 86 to the geonotices and anywhere else you customarily add it? Thanks. Hope you enjoyed Wikimania. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: OK, my checklist for new meetups is at m:User:Redrose64#Meetups; the geonotice queue is shown there as "next text [v · d · e] displays as", and is at m:User:Redrose64/geonotice. London is only just over two weeks off, but I'll wait until this evening (when I take Manchester down) before putting it up. I've added it everywhere else that you missed. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Here you go! Wgolf (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - but why? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome-for your hard work (and I was hungry lol) Wgolf (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Asidhara Rays

This is a huge sock puppet problem going on-saw you put a speedy on one of them so watch out. I put a report up: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhinav J. Ray's

Wgolf (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Bingham Road halt- closure date.

I am having problems receiving messages on my computer but I did quickly see a message reverting my edit of the closure date of this station so let me explain. The last day that trains called was Friday 13th May ( I was on the last train..!) There were no timetabled trains on Saturday 14th or Sunday 15th May. ((Trains only ran on Mondays to Fridays peak hours) The official closure date therefore was recorded as Monday 16th May 1983 as the first day when trains did not run. This is correctly shown on "Disused Stations" (editor Nick Catford) web site. It is correctly shown in "Forgotten Stations of Greater London" by J.Connor and B.Halford It is correctly shown on the Wikipedia pages for the closure date of Coombe Road and Selsdon stations and the article of the Woodside and South Croydon line. It would appear that you got the information from R.V.Butt which is incorrect..!!!! (Steamybrian2 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

@Steamybrian2: Yes, I got the information from Butt - here is the edit where I added that info, previous to which, the dates were not referenced at all. Regarding the closure date, notice that the Wikitext includes 
it was officially closed from 15 May.<ref name=Butt />
That last part - the <ref name=Butt /> - is the reference, it is a reuse of a ref that had occurred in the previous paragraph: 
It was opened on 1 September 1906<ref name=Butt>{{cite book |last=Butt |first=R.V.J. |title=The Directory of Railway Stations |year=1995 |publisher=Patrick Stephens Ltd |location=Yeovil |isbn=1-85260-508-1 |id=R508 |page=34 |ref=harv }}</ref>
I have explained about references before; you may care to review WP:CITE (or if you prefer, WP:CITEBEGIN). If you change referenced material so that it no longer agrees with the cited source, you must not only provide your source, but also be able to demonstrate why your source is more reliable than the one that was already there. This may be done on the article's talk page, Talk:Bingham Road Halt railway station.
Travelling on the last train is inadmissible as a source, as is any other personal knowledge: it does not satisfy the policy on verifiability and also fails the policy on original research. You also cannot use Wikipedia as a ref source, see WP:CIRCULAR. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Noted-- We agree to have different opinions and sources of information...!!Steamybrian2 (talk)

(talk page stalker) I think this is another one which Butt has got wrong. {{Quick-Stations}} gives 16 May as the official closure date and it is also in the Connor work (p. 12) to which Steamybrian refers. The last train ran on 13 May according to Croydon's Railways by M.W.G. Skinner (p. 37), with Alan Jackson's London's Local Railways (p. 55) confirming that the last service departed SNR at 19:30 on that date. I also have a London Railway Record article somewhere which I imagine would add further confirmation. What to do with the infobox? Add 15/16 or treat Butt as wrong? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
If the article has a ref to Butt, and Butt says 15 May, changing the date to 16 May whilst leaving the source as Butt (as Steamybrian2 did with this edit) is not the way we do things around here. Nor is changing the date and removing the existing source without providing a replacement source. Whichever date goes in the article, it must be sourced in the article (and not on a user talk page thread) to the book that actually gives that date; the new date and new source should preferably go in on the same edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicite and London Gazette

Thanks for your edit on GWR 5700 Class. I know, and had used, the London Gazette template, but in articles with a different referencing style. I spent ages last night trying to work out how to combine it with the reflist (and failed). Wikicite is now another tool in my referencing tool box! Probably worth giving it a mention in the London Gazette template docs. Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Trains membership list

Thank you for noticing the two missing user names on my recent update. I had intentionally omitted both names, although that may not have been the correct procedure. When I clicked on the "contributions" link for each name, the message indicated that "User account is not registered." I didn't see the value of including unregistered accounts on the membership list.

In the case of user Hym411, clicking on the user redirects to User:-revi. Since User:-revi includes the WikiProject Trains userbox, perhaps it would be appropriate to change the name on the listing to make that user's contributions directly accessible from the list. I would value your reasoning about maintaining User:HPeterswald on our listing of active members. Thewellman (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I'd not seen that they were unregistered. I think that I shall go back through the page history to see who added them. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was Hym411, but renamed to -revi. — revi^ 16:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
and here is HPeterswald - clearly a typo for Hpeterswald. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Thewellman: Two amendments made: see fix for HPeterswald and fix for Hym411. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
That seems an optimal update. Thank you. I noticed we share a Lancashire background. My great-grandmother (1854-1939) was born in Liverpool. Her mother was Jemima Dawson of Liverpool, and her father was a Canadian master of a trans-Atlantic schooner. My paternal grandmother was born in Prince Edward Island, but her father's family of shipwrights moved to Boston when the Canadian wooden shipbuilding industry collapsed in the late 19th century. Thewellman (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Rollback on CND page?

I came across a number of recent edits to Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament by a new editor User talk:Gaylena (because a refname change had been flagged). As well as changing a refname from spinwatch to Spinwatch and making it invalid, there are a number of changes (organisation=>organization, defence=>defense) which have not been thought through (Michael Heseltine is now described as the Minister of Defense..). Although the page is not marked as UK English it probably should be. Since there are a number of edits, its probably easier and clearer for an admin (such as yourself) to rollback all the changes. One change of organisation=>organization is probably valid (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe), as that seems to be the official spelling of its name.

Is this the correct way to ask for a rollback (by talking to an admin)? (rather than asking for rollback rights). Robevans123 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

They were good-faith spellcheck edits by a new user almost certainly unfamiliar with MOS:ENGVAR - not WP:ROLLBACKable, but they were WP:UNDOable. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I'd not realised I could undo multiple edits from the diff summary. Robevans123 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Not in source"

The quote you're looking for is in the source. Here is a copied text of the one that appeared in the Chicago Tribune in 2010 which contains the quote. The link you're looking at, has an option "read more at" which you haven't noticed.--Retrohead (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Retrohead: From WP:V: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." I had looked at both pages of the linked doc, and the quote appears on neither of them, and so they do not directly support the material. I do see where it says "Read more of this interview at chicagotribune.com/gregkot."; but that isn't a link. If I put chicagotribune.com/gregkot into my browser URL bar, I get redirected to http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/kot/ which is a page about Prince and a few other people, nothing to do with Megadeth at all.
The link in the ref needs to go to the page where the quote actually appears. Readers must not be expected to follow a trail. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I offered you a copy of the article in electronic form so you can verify the content. When I updated the quote in November 2013, the quote was in the link. Obviously the Chicago Tribune staff cut it off in order readers to purchase the printed edition of the newspaper. I'm not savvy with links to Wiki policies, but I'm sure I've read somewhere that not all printed media is available, but that not necessarily means that sourced content is false.--Retrohead (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Occasionally links go stale. In such cases we have several options (see WP:DEADLINK). When the website has moved the content somewhere else within the same site, we can simply amend the URL in the ref to point to the new location; if it does not appear on that website at all, we can use a web archiving service and link through the |archiveurl= parameter. If another source offers the same material as the original source, we can use that - either as a second ref, or replacing the original ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that your last edit on Megadeth was correct. The quote should be sourced with the original newspaper which published it→the Chicago Tribune. The parameter clearly says the access date was November 17, 2013, which means the quote was there that day. In case the reader has trouble verifying the reference, he can contact me (or I'll step in since I'm watching the page), and I'll help him check the source.--Retrohead (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
We can't expect our readers to contact a specific editor - or even to know which editor to contact. WP:V is satisfied if the quoted material appears in the source. If you really want the Chicago Tribune article to be used as a source, please locate an archive copy on a web archiving service that may be used to populate |archiveurl= and |archivedate=. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That was my original thought. Any idea where to find the older version of the url? And hand on heart, the unauthorized Victoria Advocate article hardly seems like a FA-quality source.--Retrohead (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is unauthorised. It begins "By Greg Kot Chicago Tribune (MCT)", so we have author, where it was first published, and the agency it was obtained through - MCT being McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. Lots of newspapers obtain their material through agencies, particularly when they can't afford to keep in-house reporters on the spot. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It clearly mirrors the Chicago Tribune, and doesn't bring anything new to the table. According to me, it is always better to have the original publisher at hand than some fourth-party coverage. By the way, Greg Kot is journalist from the Chicago Tribune, not from Victoria Advocate.--Retrohead (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Where did I say otherwise? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
This entire discussion is a bit silly. If the point of your tag "not in source" was to verify the existence of Mustaine's quote, I think now you have done it. Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, if I've read the quote myself in book or newspaper, which I did, I'm not obligated to provide you a copy of the article, but did it anyway.--Retrohead (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Silly? This revert was silly, because the page once again fails WP:V, and so if it should come up at WP:FAR, it would be delisted because it no longer satisfies WP:FACR criterion 1c. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The article is in the newspaper. It is a printed source, which means I'm not even suppose to give you a link, as long as I cite the date and article title. And it certainly does not fail the verifiability criteria. The are numerous book citations present in the article without a direct link, so I guess that would also fail?--Retrohead (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not complaining about book citations. The citation in question has no page number (which one would expect for a print source) but it does have a URL, which means that you're giving an online source; this is reinforced by the presence of an access date (November 17, 2013) that is more than three years later than the cover date (August 15, 2010). It's clearly an online source that is being cited, so when somebody clicks on the link to view that source, they expect to find that it supports the quote. In its present form, it doesn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Well that's why we have the "access date" field, so the reader can reckon that the quote was there on November 17, 2013. If you do a review on all online references, surely you'll find other anomalies. We can argue all day about the Chicago Tribune versus Victoria Advocate option, but how is that going to improve the article? If your intention was to verify whether there was "sophomore" in Mustaine's statement, have you verified it?--Retrohead (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User 86.3.154.114

86.3.154.114 (talk · contribs) He's back — with the same editing patterns as before. 31 days or 1 year? Useddenim (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Help of displacement of Semi - protection

Hi, can you requested move a page Persib Bandung is not protected to semi-protected? Excuse me, cause a lot of people anonymously who aren't responsible for the editing. Thankyou. (Tommy 17:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy1933 (talk • contribs)

@Tommy1933: No. As I advised at User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 7#Help of displacement of Semi - protection, you should file a request at WP:RFPP. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~ --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex unions template: Alaska

Could you please update the template...? [1]Prcc27 (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex union legislation

Thanks for formatting the notes on the page so they follow the same system. I didn't know how to do it, or I would have done it myself. I copied the notes from the US' page on same sex marriage, and reformatted the text to fit the general same-sex unions page. The general same-sex unions page had gotten outdated (listing 19 rather than 28 US states), and I felt listing all the 28 states in open text would make the page cluttered. -- Lejman (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you assist?

EngineeringGuy has been trying to update some graphs in the Wikiprojects section of the page for Wikipedia, and one of the graphs is unusually large. It occurred to me that if someone could turn it on its side (just like the mode used for the language usage graphs higher up at that page), that the giant graph would take up less than half the space. Since I don't know how to do it, maybe you could look at it and see if it could be easily tipped on its side to save visual space on the page. FelixRosch (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the image name, and which page is it on? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The exact location is on the article for Wikipedia in its Section 5 for "Language editions" for the nice version of what the graph could/should look like. The giant graph taking up visual space is at Section 9.4 on that page with the title "Wikiprojects...". Tipping the big graph sideways looks like it would save much visual graph space. FelixRosch (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The bar chart at Wikipedia#Language editions is {{Largest Wikipedias/graph}}. In Wikipedia#Wikiprojects and assessment of importance, I assume that you mean the bit that begins 
{{ #invoke:Chart | bar chart
| height = 700
| width = 800
That begins #invoke:, so it is a Lua module, specifically Module:Chart. I do not touch Lua modules; I have explained elsewhere why not, and other people (like Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs) and Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs)) are getting tired of my reasons. Quite simply: I (and many other people) do not understand how they do what they do, and it is damn-near impossible to work out what the valid parameters are, so there isn't a chance in hell that I know how to turn it sideways. If you look at the edit history for that module, the same name - קיפודנחש (talk · contribs) - comes up against 96% of the edits. That is a good indication that only one person actually understands the module; therefore, that is the person to ask. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion and I left a message there. On a separate issue at Talk:Artificial Intelligence, there appears to be a poorly formed RfC which a number of editors have flagged as being poorly formed. Its format has also been altered midway after it started while running. Could I ask you to take a quick look to see if it is ill-formed and possibly make a suggestion to avoid the lost editor time there. My thought was to start a Talk discussion there as soon as possible for pursuing a page upgrade there once the RfC is finished/done. FelixRosch (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I see that I have been named three times at Talk:Artificial Intelligence - all by yourself. I also see that you are the only person who has described the RFC as "poorly formed" - seven times in all. It is only fair for me to disclose that yesterday I responded to CharlesGillingham (talk · contribs) on what I can only assume is the same matter at WP:VPM#Help with a difficult editor. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Module:Chart does not currently support turning the graph sideways. The sideways graph above is more-or-less produced by hand. Perhaps קיפודנחש could add the functionality. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
just setting the record straight: Module:Chart uses "cheap tricks" to generate graphs using pure html/css, which is not really meant for this kind of stuff. the correct technical solution, IMO, is using either html5 construct called "canvas" or inline SVG. unfortunately, wikipedia wikitext parser blocks both, so these can't be used ATM.
the third-best option is to utilize the plotting capabilities of "easytimeline" extension. lua/scribunto is ideal tool to allow convenient parameter passing (the graph data, colors, size etc.), and for converting the data to the complex and complicated syntax used by easytimeline. unfortunately, i do not have the bandwidth to take this not-insignificant project ATM, so i left a request for other people versed in scribunto to try to tackle it. see Wikipedia:Lua requests#overhaul Module:Chart. hopefully, some kind soul with the right aptitude and time will decide this is worth doing. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Redrose; Both the other editors have made constructive comments on the graphs and maybe you could re-evaluate the graphs for possible improvement or suggestion for improvement. If the graph problem is too complex, then I noticed that the top of the big graph (the over 250K region) is completely unused and perhaps a 'quick' fix would simply drop the unused top part if this is easy to do (outside my domain). This would save about 20% of the visual space used. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not touching this. I already said that it's not my area. I really don't know why you came to me in the first place: I've never edited either the Wikipedia page or the {{Largest Wikipedias/graph}} template; nor have I created graphs for use on other pages; and my Lua edits are few, and consist mainly of reversions - only one wasn't a revert, and that had been written by somebody else. To see the images that I have created, see User:Redrose64#Images - not one of them is a graph. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Concerning your revert on Conspiracy, it might be more helpful to the wiki as a whole, that if you disagreed with how it, the DAB (or any article), was written, to change it to its "proper" format, or at the very least, if you would communicate with the editor (like this). I don't pretend to know all of the nuances of Wikipedia in my years of editing; however a couple of things I have gleaned is that everyone makes mistakes, AND that it helps the overall situation if one communicates directly to the editor, especially on good faith edits. I assume the flaw that you have found is that my blue link is to J. Robert King which has no mention of conspiracy. Other editors have informed me that the best link on these DAB's on unwritten pages concerning books is the author.

Sincerely speednat (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In my edit summary I included a link to MOS:DABMENTION. That says "If the title is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic.". There is no mention of any book titled Conspiracy at J. Robert King; therefore, that page should not be linked from Conspiracy. Since that was the only link on the line, the line should be removed per MOS:DABENTRY "An entry with no links at all is useless for further navigation". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have changed it; however if you would also read from that same page that you linked to. "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." Now I am not saying that my way is right only that just because my edit disagrees with the "guideline" page that does not by definition make it wrong. The point that I come back to is the courteousness or lack thereof of your revert. Keep in mind that other editors respond better to civility, myself included. If you take a gander at Civility you will read "Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed." I emphasize and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space... In my years of editing and communication with other editors, I have always found it to be extremely beneficial in reverts or any change that even hints at controversy to talk on the user's talk page not just on the edit summary. I explain what, why, etc of my edits or reverts. Rarely when I do this are there problems, and rarely when people do this to me are there problems. I have been tweaking a lot of DAB's lately and two have been reverted. Conspiracy and another. With Conspiracy, there was not a lot of information given other than a link that I had to figure out exactly what it meant. I also immediately took a defensive stance. The "other" was accompanied by a pleasant message on my talk page, I replied and before any further edits, both parties agreed what was best. Back to Conspiracy. Now, I initially would not have instigated the talk, as if the reverter "you" does not have time to "talk" to me then vice versa. I would have reverted and done what I felt was correct and the solution would have probably been further away, especially if I couldn't ferret out what you meant. I am not trying to be critical, just to be critical, but to help. The bottom line, I assume, is that we both want to improve the Wiki, and to do so efficiently requires open communication. Thanks speednat (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Your blocking of the same-sex marriage template is unwarranted

Why did you block this? This is a fast-changing subject. Alaska just achieved marriage equality but nobody can update the template because you're keeping people from updating it. Don't confuse edit-warring with good-faith disagreement and confusion, which is what happened with Idaho. I think you were too quick with the trigger. Those of us who have been closely following the subect of same-sex marriage have been doing just fine editing the relevant articles without outside interference from administrators. Tinmanic (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I explained at Template talk:Same-sex unions#Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2014 why. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
And I've responded by explaining (with sources including the judgement if the court) why Alaska should, in my view, be added. When your able I'd love to get a reply. Appreciations in advance. Jono52795 (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't prejudice against Alaska. I have again replied at Template talk:Same-sex unions#Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps protection could be removed from this template now. It's been three days. A week seems excessive, and the incident that initiated the protection is over (Idaho has full marriage equality now). http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/10/15/3429228/idaho-counties-begin-issuing-same.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1 http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/idaho-begins-issuing-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples/ Tinmanic (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not take it well when no less than five edit requests (not counting this thread) are submitted all requesting basically the same thing. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Others don't take it well when you block legitimate edits to an article that has been surprisingly civil considering the charged nature of the subject. You seem to have overstepped your bounds considerably. May I remind you that you do not OWN the article. DB (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not claiming ownership. I'm trying to discourage the increasing tendency to pointless edit-and-revert which has been happening on that template for some months. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not even referring to the protection, which may or may not be necessary. I'm referring to the specific case of Idaho. Gov. Otter has explicitly stated he will not appeal the ruling and marriage licenses have been issued to gay couples as of today. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/14/us-usa-gaymarriage-idaho-idUSKCN0I32SX20141014, http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marriage-developments-idaho-couples-marry-26219293. The only way this would change again is if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that the bans are constitutional. However, if you went by that standard, then every single state that has had a ban overturned at the federal level and not the state level would have to be modified. DB (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a case of edit-and-revert. This is accepting reality as has been well documented. Difbobatl (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64, please remove the asterisk from Idaho immediately from this template. This is a time-sensitive matter, and any further delay is unacceptable. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Rreagan007
  1. Nothing on Wikipedia is a time-sensitive matter. Wikipedia is not a matter of life and death.
  2. People have real lives and live in different time-zones. As Redrose64's user page states, he lives in England, thus is probably asleep.
  3. The template is protected, but any admin can edit it. The proper thing is to is add a "Template-protected edit request" to the template's talk page. This has already been done.
  4. Discussion should be on the template's talk page and not here. This is about the template, not Redrose. Also good for other people to see what has been going on, say an uninvolved admin responding to a protected edit request.
Bgwhite (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite
  1. I completely disagree. The deadline is now.
  2. He was clearly awake and responding earlier, stubbornly refusing to make the necessary changes. So him (possibly) being asleep now is no excuse.
  3. Yes, and it's taking far too long to get resolved. It should have been changed by now.
  4. I already commented on the talk page. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate with me leaving a message here as well.
Rreagan007 (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"I do not take it well when no less than five edit requests (not counting this thread) are submitted all requesting basically the same thing." Really? The problem is that too many people want this change, or that some of those who want the change are not that well versed in protected-page procedure? If you are unable to see past your own frustration in this manner, please forego your WP:OWNERSHIP of the page and pass it along to some administrator who will not choose to take edit requests personally. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@NatGertler and Rreagan007: Redrose has in no way asserted any ownership. The page has been protected. It was protected because of edit warring on if * should be allowed or not. Other editors do not want it. Redrose has followed standard procedure for an edit war. ANY admin can edit it. The edit template request goes into a general forum in which ANY admin can respond and in which one did. The deadline is now is an essay and not policy or guidance. Again, this is not life or death. Again, all editors have real lives and are not on Wikipedia 24-hours a day.
Both of you, stop editing here as this is not the place. Stop with accusations. I see shouting and threats on other pages about this. Always, assume good faith. Follow proper procedure... Dispute resolution or request third opinion is what you do next. I've already had to deal with an editor getting death threats today and unfortunately, they gave where he lives in the threat. Stay calm. Bgwhite (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite:There is overwhelming consensus for this change, so it should be made. As far as I am aware, I am following Wikipedia procedures. I have not shouted or made any threats, so perhaps it is you who should assume good faith. And I will stop responding to you here when you stop responding to me here. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Thank you for your replies above. As you surmise, I was asleep; but only for part of the time. I logged out shortly before 20:00 (UTC) and since then have not been at the computer, but have been doing other things, I won't bore you with details. After a busy day, I came back at 18:30 to find a whole heap of bad stuff here, at Template talk:Same-sex unions, and to cap it all, this.
@DB, Difbobatl, NatGertler, and Rreagan007: Comments like "please remove the asterisk from Idaho immediately from this template. This is a time-sensitive matter, and any further delay is unacceptable"; "The deadline is now"; or "him (possibly) being asleep now is no excuse" imply that you are certain that I was sitting at the computer, and monitoring this page/my notifications/my watchlist at the time. I wasn't. Being asleep on duty is a crime in the armed forces, and a disciplinary matter in several other jobs, but it is not on Wikipedia. Maybe I was asleep. Maybe I was watching TV. Or maybe having dinner. Maybe walking the dog. Or none of the above. You don't know, and you cannot expect me to be on call 24/7. Regarding "forego your WP:OWNERSHIP of the page and pass it along to some administrator who will not choose to take edit requests personally", I stated above that I do not claim ownership; also other admins are available, as are template editors. The protected edit request system has some pages which list outstanding edit requests, these lists include User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable and Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests, both of which are where pages bearing an open {{edit template-protected}} are listed. Any user with either the admin right or the template-editor user right can monitor those pages and act on the requests; they are not assigned to any specific individual. Other users with the appropriate right are therefore not barred by myself from editing the template; there is no ownership on my part. To make certain that I do not get in the way of any ongoing discussions at Template talk:Same-sex unions, I have unwatched that page; but not before I saw some of the very nasty remarks made there about me. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
{replyto|Redrose64} If you look closely you will see that I did not make "nasty" remarks nor was I one of the people referring to time-sensitivity. What is frustrating is that you protected the template, causing this panic to make the simplest changes. I think it is probably best you unwatched the page, which is why I am replying here, but by leaving the protection we still have the problem of efficiently keeping the page up to date. Difbobatl (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Difbobatl, it really doesn't matter. You wouldn't expect Encyclopedia Britannica to update their section on the topic, re-print it, and send it out multiple times a month, would you? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and our content is based on the historical accounts as reported by reputable reporting agencies. If the content is accurate (properly updated, not maliciously malformed) more than once a year, then the readers should consider themselves rewarded by the extra benefit that an online encyclopedia offers. Coming to this user talk page and harassing this administrator about such a topic (which belongs on the topic's talk page) is unacceptable (despite how I may or may not feel about this user's methods or my past interactions with him or her (I'd say we disagree more than agree)). Thank you for your interest in improving this encyclopedia, and let's please get back on track to do that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Rather odd you included me in your response without actually quoting what I said. I reminded you of the concept of owning articles and said you seemed to be going on a power trip. "any further delay is unacceptable" is a rather childish comment, since obviously a reasonable person would not expect you to be here 24 hours a day editing articles. However, the problem is that you were here and you explicitly rejected the edit, so the excuse of not being around is invalid. Furthermore, if you don't really care that much about it, you could have let another admin deal with it, but again, you chose to go in and reject the proposed edit. If you had just not done anything with the page (including comment) for several days, then yes, the complaints would be unwarranted, but you can't claim absence or indifference when your edit record clearly shows otherwise. DB (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Template:Same-sex unions

The template was protected explicitly because of the situation in Idaho (your edit summary: "Protected Template:Same-sex unions: Edit warring / content dispute: Idaho - yes or no? Discuss please, don't keep changing the template"). The situation has been resolved in the real world and, as proven by the edit summary left by another admin ("Broad consensus on talk page to remove asterisk from Idaho; add asterisk to Alaska as SSM is temporarily stayed"), so there no longer seems a basis for protection. -Rrius (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rrius: It was indeed protected because of the Idaho dispute, which no longer exists; but it is now apparent that a similar controversy now exists regarding Alaska. I am reluctant to lift the prot before it expires, but as long as this is hanging over me, I am not touching that template. If another admin wishes to unprotect the page, I won't object. Feel free to file a request at WP:RFPU. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no controversy over Alaska. Cite, please? Tinmanic (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tinmanic: The very fact that this thread goes contrary to this thread, and the fact that this thread was raised at all should be sufficient "cite". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That first link is from October 16, and that second link is from October 12. On October 12, a federal district court judge found Alaska's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, so marriages became legal there, warranting a template change. On October 13, marriages began. On October 16, the Ninth Circuit, which is the appellate body over the U.S. district court for Alaska, granted a stay at the request of Alaska state officials, warranting another template change. There is no Wikipedia controversy, merely changing circumstances. Wikipedia articles and templates are supposed to kept up to date. Respectfully, you do not seem to understand U.S. same-sex marriage legal developments or U.S. legal procedure, which is why your attempts to administrate this page have troubled so many people. Tinmanic (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Just because there are "contrary threads" doesn't mean there is any controversy over Alaska. Same-sex marriage became legal in Alaska, the next day a license was issued to a same-sex couple in Barrow, then the ruling was stayed. This means that Alaska should be in the "previously performed" column. So to be fair, the threads are being updated as the situation with Alaska evolves, they are not contradicting each other. Prcc27 (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

An apology from me

An apology from me
I want to apologise to you after my hasty actions and words regarding your protection of the same-sex marriage template. I was way out of line, your actions were warranted, and I understand why you acted the way you did. I am really sorry. Please continue your great work on making Wikipedia a good source of information for everyone. Kumorifox (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
(by talk page stalker) It's times like these that make being an admin so attractive. – Paine 

RfC regarding you

Redrose64, please be advised there is now a certified RfC regarding your actions at {{Same-sex unions}}. The RfC is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Redrose64. Regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: I thank you for the note, even though it arrived almost twenty hours after the RFC/U about me was raised at 20:06. It is somewhat puzzling that Difbobatl (talk · contribs) and Tinmanic (talk · contribs), who apparently raised that RFC/U, did not see fit to notify me at the time (as required by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance#Listing); nor did AnotherOnymous (talk · contribs), Dralwik (talk · contribs), Fry1989 (talk · contribs), Jono52795 (talk · contribs), Kumorifox (talk · contribs), NatGertler (talk · contribs), Prcc27 (talk · contribs), Rreagan007 (talk · contribs), Shereth (talk · contribs), Swifty819 (talk · contribs), or Thegreyanomaly (talk · contribs), all of whom posted there before your notification here. Some of these names are unknown to me; I do not recall interacting with them before. Investigating, I also find that the RFC/U was not added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList (also required by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance#Listing) until 01:52. It seems as if I was being discussed behind my back: this is not the Wikipedia way. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I had assumed that the parties initiating the RfC had done their due diligence and already notified you. Also you may notice that my comments there were not meant to endorse the RfC in any way but express some skepticism that it was necessary at all. Shereth 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for not notifying you via your Talk page -- this was my first time doing an RfC and I didn't know it was required. I had assumed you were aware of it since I mentioned it on the Talk page for the template. Tinmanic (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you mean this edit? I must have missed it this evening: when I saw that over fifty edits had been made to that page since I logged out last night, I decided not to go through them one-by-one, but looked at them all as a group; so some of the details will have passed me by. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I too would like to apologize. I thought that the procedures had already been followed by Tinmanic, who as you see was trying his best with a complicated procedure that we've (thankfully) never had to use before. Difbobatl (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've only ever read RfCs, and have never been asked to actually reply to or get involved in one. I was under the impression that either the initiating editors had notified you, or that you would have been pinged when the RfC was started. It even took me a while to figure out where to comment. I'd like to apologize for the fact that no one notified you. Swifty819 (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Redrose64, I think it better to ascribe to a mistake what could be ascribed to malice. If I'm correct, it was the first time either of these initiating editors have ever filed an RfC. They're learning, as we all have and hopefully will. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I too would like to apologise. I admit that I was following the crowd and also did not know about how RfCs were used, but did agree with what was being discussed at the time. Kumorifox (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to all who have commented above. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I consider the RfC resolved, I've requested that it be closed (or whatever needs to be done to show that it's resolved), and I removed it from the list of open RfCs. Tinmanic (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tinmanic: Thanks, but I'm not sure that you can unilaterally close it, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing#Closing by agreement, because comments were still being added some time after the protection was lifted by CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs). It may fall within Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing#Closing due to other dispute resolution; if so, please make sure that all six actions are performed. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

An apology

RedRose64, I just want to apologize for the RfC. I now realize I should have opened an RfC about articles, policies, or non-user conduct, not one about user conduct, because I didn't intend to make it about you personally. This was my first time opening an RfC and I didn't even realize there was more than one type until today. Had I realized, I would have done it differently. Again, I apologize. Tinmanic (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

London 87

Is all systems go. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done you missed Template:UK Wikipedia meetups and Wikipedia:Meetup/UK. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, there are an excessive number of these templates if you ask me. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Another template (or sidebar - not sure) that has a problem

Hi, I have spotted a second template concerning Judaism that has a mistake. I brought up the first one on GoingBatty's talk page. I have no idea how to fix it, whereas this aspect of Wikipedia seems to be one of your strengths. Please notice the problem on the Tanakh article. This time we see "padding:0.3em 0.15em", which doesn't sound Jewish to me, although I'm not a Jew. I believe the source page is here, but I'm not 100% sure. When you have a moment to reply, please ping me since I'm not fond of watching pages. Many thanks in advance, and have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fixed. Pinging Dontreader. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonesey95, that's impressive! There is just so much talent and efficiency on the English Wikipedia (I also contribute to another one). Thanks, and nice to see you again! Dontreader (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Didcot Power Station Fire

Hope everything is OK with you? It was a bit of a shock to hear about the fire after our discussion of the Buncefield fire! Leutha (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw the report on News at Ten yesterday. Didcot "B" power station, which is at 51°37′30″N 1°16′06″W / 51.6250°N 1.2683°W / 51.6250; -1.2683 (Didcot "B" power station), is just over a mile from my house. I can't see it because of trees and houses. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Leutha: It seems that the fire was in one of the cooling towers, the sixth one from the south-western end of the eastern group (of 15 towers); that cooling tower is at 51°37′24″N 1°16′13″W / 51.62322°N 1.27026°W / 51.62322; -1.27026 (Didcot "B" power station) - it spread to the two each side. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Status?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations § Status?
 – Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

English South Coast Meetup

Hi Redrose64, You may be interested in coming to this meetup.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 22:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Marek69: Sorry, but no can do. Leutha was talking about it yesterday at Oxford, but although we discussed dates for London (2nd Sunday), Oxford (3rd Sunday) and Liverpool/Manchester (4th Saturday), he hadn't settled on a final date for Eastleigh. On 23 November I'm helping to operate the layout "Millanford" at Warley National 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Thats OK. Maybe next time then. :-) -- Marek.69 talk 23:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Award 4 U

awarded to Redrose64 for joining an exclusive Wikipedia club
Vjmlhds (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: Thanks, but you're a bit late... see User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 8#Congratulations. I actually passed 100,000 on 5 June 2014 (see the "Milestones" list at User:Redrose64#Editing), and today I passed 108,000. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Biographical dictionaries

Yes it was a test... I would appreciate it if you could let me know how to delete my user account completely... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorgosaounatsos (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 October 2014‎

@Yorgosaounatsos: User accounts, once created, cannot be deleted - see Wikipedia:Account deletion. Options available to those wishing to stop editing are described on pages like WP:RETIRE and WP:VANISH. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive

I might think, you can archive this talk page as you got more than 100K bytes on this page. Can you archive it now? --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I won't. It's set to archive threads more than three months old automatically; and this is happening as necessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that the first five sections on this page may not be archiving because they're undated, and the sixth is from Rich from April. GoingBatty (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I know about those. Periodically I delete things like {{talkback}} and move the rest elsewhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

'Nother one

Here's another bit of 'nomalous template stuff:

I actually came across a redirect that was tagged like that. The separation of the innards of the Redr template doesn't happen if the "move" is removed; it (yes, it does) doesn't happen if the external rcat, R to section is removed. When the Redr is placed in the usual position on the third line (or even on the second line), then all is normal. I tried using other independent rcats and received mysterious results – {{rwp}} gives the same puzzling separation, while {{R from subpage}} looks normal. Of course, I'd like to fix this so editors don't have to be concerned about where they position the templates on a redirect, but I have no idea where to start. Any hints or tips? – Paine  23:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC) (updated 10:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

I see below that your adminstrative duties keep you very busy at present. I shall open this at VPT to see if there is a bug-report-not-needed resolution. – Paine  16:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked this and was then busy. Answered at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 131#Tearing its guts out. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Well – well, you do this to me so often that I'm just about at the end of my... (now where did that TIC smiley go? Ah, here it is!) L8R G8R – Paine  05:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:Redirect template has been Lua-ised. This means that I can no longer offer support for it; accordingly, I've unwatched it. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

London 87

The link seems to be broken on the geonotice? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. You may need to wait a few minutes for it to propagate. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

HIDE_PARAMETER

diff. Please see Template talk:Cite EB1922#HIDE_PARAMETER -- PBS (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have a moment

Hello R. I stumbled on this curiosity today. The link for Abslom Daak goes to a reference totally unrelated to this Dalek fighter from the comic strip of days gone by. I have no idea how to hunt for this happened and I would be interested to find out about it. No hurry on this. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the name; but then I've not read 99% of DWM or 75% of TNA. Try WT:WHO. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
During the Dalekmania of the mid sixties he was a character in a Dalek comic strip (which did not include the Doctor) that ran in the Radio Times (I think). I just wonder what sort torturous set of redirects occurred for the link to wind up leading the reference about SA playing DP. I'll post this there. Thanks for your time and enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 20:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
These strips titled "The Daleks" - there's an example on the back of
  • Bentham, Jeremy (1986). Doctor Who: The Early Years. London: W.H. Allen. ISBN 0-491-03612-4.
- were not in RT but a childrens' comic, I think it was called TV Century 21 at the time, but by the time that I became aware of it, had become TV21 (in the 1960s and 1970s, there were three or four publishers of children's comics in the UK, and most were in the habit of launching new comics every few months and when sales dropped after 18 months to three years, they were either relaunched under a different name or merged with another title. Sometimes strips were carried over into the new publication, but not always). Like most comics of the period (right down to the 1980s), TV21 was mostly black-and-white, with four or perhaps eight (but no more) of the 20 pages in full colour, because of the cost. "The Daleks" was full-colour, and was a single-page strip, so would probably have been on the back cover (rather than the centre pages that a two-page full-colour item would have got). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking the time to get all the info that I knew once but has gotten pushed out by time and events :-) You are probably aware that his pic turned up in "Time Heist" and that episodes article is where I discovered the odd redirect. Have you picked this up yet? As I picked up the DVDs over the years they had several ongoing documentaries - including one for the comics - and I wondered if I was going to have to go through them one by one and write by hand which DVDs had what. Thanks goodness Paul Smith did it for me. I haven't picked it up yet as it has to get in line behind other items including Ideal. Yes it is still on the list but it got pushed back over a snafu over the 50th Anniversary special box set. I won't bore you with the detail :-( Best regards and thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 21:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I've not got that book. The BBC are currently plugging this one in the (very limited) advertising space that occasionally comes up after related progs. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I have seen that one at Amazon UK. I used to get all of the ones like that back in the 80s and 90s. If it is anything like this one, which I did buy, it is geared towards the younger reader (come to think of it that was me back then-heehee) mostly pics and in-universe info. I know I linked to if for you before but this was the one that I was happy to add to my library. MarnetteD|Talk 21:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Redrose64:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Regarding my edit on Wikipedia:Protection policy

After seeing the edit notice you posted when you added the "citation" tag, I looked around the MediaWiki site for a bit as an attempt to find any information regarding the "pending changes" level of protection. Oddly enough, the site, as far as I can see, has next to no information regarding, specifically, the amount of pages that can be put under pending changes protection at a time. The only page (and subpages) that I could find that mentioned the pending changes right is mw:Pending Changes enwiki trial; I could not find any specific information about a page limit there or on its subpages. The only other page I could find that mentions page protection was mw:Manual:Administrators; that page mentions various types of page protection levels, but "pending changes protection" is not one of them. On a related note, I started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy that will hopefully get to the root of this issue/restriction, and hopefully correct it ... if the issue exists; I linked the diff where I discovered another administrator stating the information about the page limit, as well as pinged them, so I'm hoping for some input. I guess one way for you to be able to confirm if the 2000 page limit is true would be to try to test applying the level of protection to a test page; the diff I linked happened a few hours ago, so hopefully no pages' temporary pending changes protection has worn off since then. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The list is at Special:StablePages, currently there are 1942 pages listed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Quintinshill

Moved to Talk:Quintinshill rail disaster § Centenary TfA?
 – Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback Request Service

Is there a link to a page where the feedback request service page is so I can go there when I'm ready to give feedback? Thepoodlechef (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thepoodlechef: Do you mean Wikipedia:Feedback request service? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Refrence on Eden Taylor-Draper

HI,

How come you reverted my edit? Here's the thing, firstly I got a tweet from another Emmerdale actress and that was no good, then I got one from someone elses twitter and that was no good and then I was told it needed to be from Eden Taylor-Draper mentioning it being her birthday on the 28th October. I got a direct tweet from Eden Taylor-Draper mentioning it being her birthday and I did. I got the tweet from @edenelenor which is Eden Taylor-Draper's verified twitter account and I assume she does know her birthday, so what is wrong if I took on board that it needed to be confirmed by Eden and on her own, verified account? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.180.71 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The applicable policies are WP:BLP and WP:V. You need a reliable source for such things as birth dates. Twitter is not a reliable source, because anybody can set up a Twitter account in any name they choose - even that of a famous person who is not themselves. How can we be certain that the person making the tweet is who they claim to be? We can't. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The twitter account of Eden Taylor-Draper's is verified (has the blue tick). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.180.71 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

can you advise?

First are you from or near by Red Roses? I saw your edits.

Second, is there a way that you know of to appeal warnings like this one that I received from PBS. I am not asking you to waste time reading but am just asking if there is a proceedure.

Feel free to refactor this edit if I have disclosed inappropriately. Much thanks. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To the first q: see User:Redrose64#Why Redrose64? and the section below it. To the second: I stay away from topics related to that part of the world, it can provoke angry "nothing to do with you, so stay out" reactions. But if you're asking "can I appeal the initial post by PBS", I don't think that there's anything to appeal, you've not been blocked or topic-banned, AFAICT. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like a great place. ... Yes but the potential intensity of discussion is just one of the issues here. Thanks for the advice. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Willesden Junction station

If you insist on undoing my edits you could at least replace them with information which is correct and up to date.

  • SR services - your quoted source is incorrect, the track layout does not allow trains from the WLL to reach the slow and fast lines until further north; they DO pass through a previously-platformed area but not on those lines.
  • Buses - Not all the routes pass through the "station area", some are at the end of a long footpath associated with the station. If the route numbers are merely listed without further explanation then the article fails to convey relevant and not insignificant information and the bus information might as well not be shown at all.
  • DMU exception - this negates "all services" being provided by c.378 thus making your content factually incorrect
  • "by whom?" and "citation needed" - you deleted the relevant information.

Merely reverting edits without updating/correcting is tantamount to vandalism.--MBRZ48 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there are three possible route from the WCML to the WLL; two are via the Willesden Relief (with the possibility of moving from slow to relief either at Wembley Central Junction or at Sudbury (former Brent) Junction); the other is by using the slow-to-fast crossovers at Willesden North Junction and the single-track connection at Willesden No. 1 Junction. None of these pass through Willesden Junction station, so the inclusion of the information about SR services that not only do not stop at the station but cannot stop there is questionable.
It has long been agreed that for railway stations, a list of bus routes that serve the station is permissible, but additional detail - such as stop names and route destinations - is excessive detail to be avoided. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.
In this edit, when I removed the information about the DMU - which was not only unsourced, but of interest only to trainspotters - you should notice that I left it saying 'London Overground services are normally operated by Class 378 Capitalstar units', which is not the same as "all services".
Regarding this edit, I assume that by "you deleted the relevant information", you refer to the <ref>see Talk section - Rebuilding</ref> - this is a self-reference, which are not permitted as sources. You've been around for a few years, so should be familiar with WP:V and WP:NOR. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Protection advice

Hi, RedRose, I dont know how to protect a page, can you help me? I just get started here to edit :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldok (talk • contribs) 08:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me to protect a page? Please... Haroldok (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)HaroldokHaroldok (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Haroldok: Presumably this is in relation to Talk:Doña Montserrat Lopez Memorial High School#Protection. As I advised there, you need to file a request at WP:RFPP. I see that you have made a similar "request" at User talk:Haroldok#Protection; again, it's on the wrong page and needs to be on WP:RFPP. In relation to the second one, please note that user talk pages are rarely protected. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
are you an administrator? Haroldok (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)HaroldokHaroldok (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Haroldok: That is quite easy to find out. In the left margin of this page, there is a link User contributions. Click that, and in the box at the bottom there is a link User rights. This will show my entry in the users list, together with all my user rights. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Just tell me if you are an administrator, if it is okay. If you are an administrator, please accept my request on the protecting page request. :D Haroldok (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)HaroldokHaroldok (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@Haroldok: I'm not hiding anything; my user rights are described in the link that I gave. But whether I am an admin or not, this is the wrong place to request page protection. As I have stated three times already, WP:RFPP is the place to file protection requests. It's explained at the top of that page, and also at WP:Protection policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
For future ref, the request was filed (albeit malformed) and soon denied. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

unicode problem

The mysql database I use is having trouble with a unicode character in some title.

I've noticed some titles that don't display on anything of mine, windows or linux. So far, they are all redirects and not what is causing my problem. Some examples are 🖮, Ꞓ, 🔃 and Watch. Should these redirects even be there? Bgwhite (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

They were created in recent weeks by four different people. On the second and third of these, there is a template {{R from unicode}}, so the existence of this template indicates that some redirs like these are acceptable. The first three characters are U+1F5AE 'WIRED KEYBOARD', U+A792 'LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C WITH BAR', and U+1F503 'CLOCKWISE DOWNWARDS AND UPWARDS OPEN CIRCLE ARROWS'; the fourth, U+F8FF is in the Private Use Area, so has no definition, and no meaning outside the organisation that it was obtained from. You could take them to WP:RFD though. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Imperial tons

Re discussion on Long ton template - somewhere in the wikipedia guidelines there is a note that the (imperial) ton should always be disambiguated with "long ton" but I now can't find this reference - I thought it was somewhere on MOSNUM or the convert template documentation, and also looked through my recent browser history without success - my brain is scrambled - any idea where it is? Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it WP:MOSNUM#Specific units? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
No - its not... BTW I'm surprised that this section doesn't have anything on the larger imperial weights (Imperial ton, hundredweight, quarter) with abbreviations (imp ton etc) as with other imperial measurements like gallons. Robevans123 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I now realise that I totally confused myself a while back by reading the entry for "long ton" as an entry for "ton". See also Long ton talk page... Robevans123 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sort key syntax

I pinged you at Template talk:Convert#Sort key syntax but I've had a couple of pings fail for me (the diffs adding the pings looked valid!), so in case you missed it, I'm alerting you here. No problem if you don't feel like commenting because I'm asking whether I should change something in convert, and I would be very happy to not do anything. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: This edit didn't notify me, you are correct: I think that it's because your post included a subheading partway through and not at the very top. Notifications are very picky about what can trigger them; as well as the necessity for a link to my page being added at the same time as your sig, there are certain other circumstances which might cause failure, see mw:Help:Echo#Technical details, "the diff chunk of added lines must not contain new section headers".
I unwatched {{convert}} when it was Lua-ised; the template code immediately became an incomprehensible mess, which I wish to have nothing to do with. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the info on notifications—I'll have to study the docs. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help fixing the navbar links. You can skip fixing the ones with html entities ie. Ra'anana Express and the ones with multiple spaces between words. I will suppress these in the next report run. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Odd edit

I thought [2] this might interest you. I replaced 2014 with 2014, removed three characters and resolved a CS! error. I have no idea what is going, on, invisible characters, RTL markers, UTF16.... But I'm sure you can figure it out... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: There's a U+200E Left-to-right mark between the 2014 and the first closing brace. Some MediaWiki pages, like the page history, put these LRMs in after dates, and some browsers, like Chrome and Firefox, include them when you drag the mouse over the text and copy to clipboard.
BTW your attempts to ping Dr. Blofeld at #Stubs will have failed, because the correct link to the user page must go on in the same edit that a new signature is added - if you get it wrong, going back and amending will not send a notification. This post should notify though. Shall we be seeing you at Oxford in 9 days time? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so I wasn't far out...I always say RTL for LTR (perhaps because I empathize with the page). I certainly hope to make the next Oxford, but it depends on whether the roof is fixed, with winter coming on and all. Having to deal with two types of pitch is confusing at the best of times. When I pitch the offcuts to the floor it is worse. Anyway that's my pitch. For nostalgia's sake Oh No! Don't Let the Rain Come Down. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC).

Moorfields Closure

Hello. I saw your edit on Moorfields railway station and you reverted the edit to say it's not closing. It closes next year, but don't worry, it's only for Refurbishment. They closed Liverpool Central a few years ago so they will probably do the same thing here. thanks --MKY661 (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, it was worded in such a way that it gave the impression that the closure would be permanent - there were no phrases like "temporary closure", or "closed for x months", nor any mention of a future reopening. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Redrose64

Wishing Redrose64/unclassified 10 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Vatsan34 (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn Class A2 60532 Blue Peter

Hi Redrose. I noticed your edit on this article. Like you, I found nothing in the October RM, but there is a mention of the sale in the RM November issue. It's on page 7 "A2 Blue Peter sold, overhaul lined up". It does support the statement about the sale, and planned overhaul to "75mph-capable operation" (I guess that covers "mainline standard"), but there is no mention of any target date such as 2020. Not sure what to do with it...

BTW I had a look at Royal Scot Locomotive and General Trust and the trust's own website. The article abbreviates the name as "RSL&GT", but the trust's site uses "RSLGT", and confusingly RM uses "RS&GT". Would it be better if we (wikipedia) used the trust's preferred style? Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Robevans123: The title of the item is very different from that claimed in the recent edits to our article, and as you say the item doesn't support all of the claims, so I'm unsure whether they are referring to The Railway Magazine specifically, or a railway magazine generally. But if it is this particular mag, Here's how I would enter a full ref, if indeed that is the correct piece:
I've given the parameters in descending order of importance. The first four are essential; many people would omit the last four or five. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Date format in Linux articles

Hello! Any chances, please, for you to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software § Date format in release history sections of Linux articles and possibly comment there by providing your point of view? The whole thing is pretty much poorly discussed with only a few editors actually discussing it, while it seems to be affecting more than a few articles (and the date format seems to be extending beyond the tables into references, please see history of the Linux distribution article). Any contributions to the discussion would be highly appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dsimic, well this is an easy one to answer. The Linux clock begins on Jan 1, 1970 and is kept in seconds. Therefore the date in the tables should be time in seconds since the epoch date. :) Also, when one was born close to the epoch date, knowing how long you have been alive in seconds impresses people (or convinces them you are a nerd). I've run into this IP before. Their sole purpose is to create drama and to gut English translations of Homer. Bgwhite (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hehe, time in seconds since the epoch date. :) That's a good one! :) Thank you very much for helping out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dsimic and Bgwhite: I don't know why my talk page is suddenly hosting a discussion on a topic in which I have never been involved. I assume from Dsimic's original post that they were informing me of a thread elsewhere; so per WP:MULTI it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for this out-of-place discussion. I've just tried to bring your attention to a discussion taking place in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software § Date format in release history sections of Linux articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Your original notification was OK (if puzzling), although I already knew about it because you posted an identical message to the talk pages of several other users that are on my watchlist. It's discussing the matter here that is inappropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Understood, and agreed. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Carterhatch Lane Halt railway station

Red - please could you review this page as I published it and it now has a "needs review template" on it. Many thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please re-check my edit which you reverted

Moved to Talk:Manchester Metrolink § Needs updating.
 – Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit protected

I believe there is now rough consensus for a proposed change to WP:CONSENSUS at WT:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building in talk pages - new compromise proposal. Would you mind implementing the edit? Thank you.- MrX 15:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Information

Just a reminder re this. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Information (2)

Just visited another File: page and was reminded that Template:Information still doesn't appear to've been updated – have you missed this (and this)..? Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

multiple Issues

I would like to ask to help to solve how can i gain wrights so i can continue editing Kiril Tenekedjiev's page, I am new to wikipedia and i have very hard time to edit the article correctly.

Thank you in advance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nissan300zx (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 November 2014‎

The page is protected - here's the log - it would appear to be because you (and another person) made a large number of edits which removed sourced material, reducing it to a single-sentence unsourced stub. If you wish to make changes to the article, I suggest that you describe on its talk page exactly what changes you want to make, and give sources for all new information, as well as justification for any content removal. BTW you don't appear to be "new to wikipedia" - you have been editing for nearly eleven months. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Football

That's odd...I'm not sure how it happened. I did a large set of Ukrainian talkpages, and a few of them were football-related, so I added the template to those. How it got added to that bunch I'm really not sure, as I was pretty sure I had removed everything not-sports related at that point. I'll fix them right away. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Should be all taken care of now. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Suez canal

I got the revert echo, but I only saw you solved the duplicate parameter thing after I had synced the sandbox with live code. Hence me unknowingly overwriting. Anyway, I think there is no problem having the sandbox in sync with live code. I have no intention to use it btw. -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

London Dirthole Company is a real band

Noticed your reversion on Debbie Smith (musician). Actually, it's not so doubtful - she actually is in a band called London Dirthole Company and I added a citation for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrybob (talk • contribs) 23:11, 25 November 2014‎

@Larrybob: OK, thanks; although that news report takes ages to load on my system, because of all the movies in the adverts down the right-hand side. I fixed the ref to use {{cite news}} instead of {{citation}}, for consistency with the rest of article which uses WP:CS1. Coincidentally, I was listening to On (Echobelly album) just yesterday - great guitar work. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Cyberchase episodes

Apparently for the same reason I template protected Battle of Ilovaisk. The voices told me too. Fixed it now. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft Award

Mary Wollstonecraft Award
The Mary Wollstonecraft Award is awarded to contributors who have helped improve the coverage of women writers and their work on Wikipedia through content contributions, outreach, community changes and related actions. In particular, thank you for your efforts with the WikiProject Women writers start-up; your ideas and contributions are much appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Rosiestep! --Redrose64 (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Alpha

I used to have a coding in my script for a browsing option of articles in alphabetical order on wikipedia with an article at the top left and top right at the top of the page with an arrow. So when you visit an article the next one forward and last one in the A-Z index appear. Can you restore it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: This isn't something that I'm aware of, unless you mean WP:AWB. If it's not AWB, do you recall what it was called, who or where you first head of it, or when you installed it? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing to do with AWB. I used to have something in User:Dr. Blofeld/monobook.js I think which gave an index browsing option at the top of every article as you'd get in a book encyclopedia, browsing by A-Z. I even stated "remove pager" in an edit summary so if I wanted it in future I could find it. But I can't. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Was it this? 

importScript("User:PleaseStand/wikiapi.js"); importScript("User:PleaseStand/prevnext.js");

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 17:50, 4 December 2014‎

Of the two, I would say "yes" to User:PleaseStand/prevnext.js, and "maybe" to User:PleaseStand/wikiapi.js - but that's deleted. The best person to ask is probably PleaseStand (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Responded at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Alphabetical. PleaseStand (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC/u || user block

Hi. I just read through Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Redrose64 which I found while distractedly reading through a proposal to do away w/ RFC/u, iirc, and I was flabbergasted to see what you'd been subjected to. Then I read through a few more RFC/u thingies, and it's all solidified my intention to express support for doing away with the concept, not to be replaced.

Unrelated to that, and somewhat randomly, i KNow, I wanted to enquire as to whether or not you might know why User:Demiurge1000 was globally blocked, and if so, when they'll be able to return to editing? I had a shared MilHist interest w/ them but never got around to following up w/ them about an idea I had ... and now they're not around, I guess.

OK, Cheers! Azx2 01:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Azx2: User:Demiurge1000 was apparently globally banned (n.b. not globally blocked, although the effect is the same), two days ago, so presumably there was some grave offence which occurred on several Wikimedia sites, that needed action by the Foundation. Although I'm an admin on English Wikipedia, I'm just a regular user elsewhere, so some areas are closed off for me; I do know that global blocks and bans are usually dealt with on meta:, although I don't know where this specific case would have been handled. The note on the user's page says "Please address any questions to legal@wikimedia.org" so presumably the WMF are not accepting queries on normal talk pages, but the first part of that email address suggests that the grave offence had criminal implications. I don't know what those might be. I have interacted with this user before, although not very often; the last time was I think in one of the cases of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mujeeb Rahman Chandio - there were only a few of us on the lookout for this guy, so one down is a significant loss. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64:Thanks for the favor of your reply. I didn't realize the implication of the action to remove User:Demiurge1000, that it suggested a grave offence that potentially involved criminal liability. What a shame. Seemingly-mysterious stuff like this is always (for me, at least) a bit disconcerting to encounter, but I appreciate your taking the time to respond. Cheers. Azx2 18:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the details; it's that word "legal" and the total lack of warnings or other relevant messages at the user's talk page that I'm going on. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Understood. Azx2 19:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: hey there, one last thing now that I think about it: iirc, user:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, before he was banned, campaigned for better Wikipedia child protection/safety policy enforcement by WMF. It's difficult to tell from the off-site data vs. what was discussed on talk pages (or at least reproduced there) but I wonder if KW was questioning the conduct of Demiurge1000 therein, and his concern has been vindicated? Ugh/yuk. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to correspond. Cheers. Azx2 20:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of websites that are unrelated to Wikimedia where speculation, conspiracy theories, sniping and blatant libels are posted. I ignore them all. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"I ignore them all" < < < probably the smart/rational/reasonable/safe/intelligent thing to do. Cheers! Azx2 01:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A bit of template help on {{GOCE award/sandbox}}, if you have time

This is a request for a bit of help with the sandbox of a new template I have created, {{GOCE award/sandbox}}, if you have time.

I am not a seasoned template creator, so the code is a dog's breakfast, but it works as intended. My only technical problem with it is that the month name is not substituted properly. It works, but when you subst the template into an editor's talk page, the resulting wikitext shows a bunch of code instead of a simple month name. I am trying to calculate the month name, and it uses a bunch of substitution, but it does not substitute all the way down.

Any insight and advice you can provide will be welcome. Feel free to modify the sandbox code. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I got it sorted with help from a couple of lovely folks at VPT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Always a good place, just in case I'm away for two days again --Redrose64 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wmflabs?

Hello Redrose64. How familiar are you with wmflabs? Is it widely known to be an effective system; even as my own experience using that system rates it poorly against the former tooserver? I am interested in your thoughts. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Compared to Toolserver circa 2011/12 (before it started losing funding and interest from WMDE), I think that Labs has more outages, and some reports are more prone to timing out. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I use dumps regularly for WP:CheckWiki. There was recently an 8 out of 12 month period of problems with dump access. I don't use the replicated database, but wasn't there an outage from Sept. to Nov.? When I run CheckWiki on enwiki, it takes 15 hours to run on my 5-year old laptop. It takes 3-4 days on labs. Bgwhite (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

An error in a reference

Redrose,

Please see Talk:Loading gauge#An error on the loading gauge diagram and Talk:Loading gauge#An error, Regards, Peter Horn User talk 21:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple move requests in categories

Hi Red

Can you help in developing a multiple requested move as in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. The basic format is {{subst:cfr|Proposed name|Cfd section name}}.


In one case I would like to take categories : Christian terrorism‎; Hindu terrorism, Islamic terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism‎ and propose : Terrorism associated with Christianity‎; Terrorism associated with Hinduism, Terrorism associated with Islam and Terrorism‎ associated with Judaism. There are many people in all of these faiths that would not want to say that their faith necessarily has terrorism as a constituent part.

In another case I'd like to propose a move of all items in Category:States and territories established in the 21st century to move to Category:Territories established in the 21st century and similar. There's a lot of them and your advice would be appreciated. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What is lacking from the existing WP:CFR#HOWTO process? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Goldeneye loco

Saw you edits on British Rail Class 20. Was intrigued to find out what it looked like in the film. Found a model at Shapeways. Looks more like a tool on a swiss army knife for opening tins rather than stream-lined (but probably as effective as some of GWR's efforts at streamlining...) & definitely not a steam loco. Robevans123 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Help for a rollback

Hi Redrose! I hope you are doing well. I am now in Cambridge and have met other Wikipedians there. Could you help me to restore Viola–Jones object detection framework (recently damaged by a series of edits)? We have talked about it at the WikiProject Computer science and we think we need to restore an old version, but we don't have rollback rights. Cheers. − Pintoch (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Pintoch: I replied there. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! − Pintoch (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Man Haron Monis

Hi,

Redrose64, I think your replies on Man Haron Monis are non-helpful. The article 2014 Sydney hostage crisis has a source saying he is dead, and basically every major news source is reporting that he is dead. It should only take a moment for you to find numerous reliable sources stating he is dead. Denying the requests because the users didn't supply a source themselves, when such sources are so readily available, seems totally nonsensical. Why not actually improve the article, rather than just posting replies denying people's requests to improve the article? Calathan (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are far too many repeat requests. There are eight sections titled "Protected edit request on 15 December 2014"; and that's not counting variations. People are clearly not looking at what is already on the page before adding their own totally redundant thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redrose64/unclassified_10&oldid=1094658828"