User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 22

Cheers on the revert on the Biddulph Valley Line draft

It's my first day at AfC and I noticed the inline content was BLP-only after I had tagged a couple articles. Sorry to make you do work! Will improve in the future. Cheers SportingFlyer talk 09:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup on trans woman RfC

Thanks for paying attention, both to the RfC being unsigned and to this list issue. I did not notice the change from numbered list had been made, but had I, I would've assumed it reflected prior consensus. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The signature is optional, but the timestamp is mandatory: this marks the end of the opening statement, and is also used to calculate the thirty-day expiry. The list problem is summarised at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Line breaks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification of general sanctions.

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption related to systems of measurement in the United Kingdom. Before continuing to make edits that involve units or systems of measurement in United Kingdom-related contexts, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Kahastok talk 17:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You are asking me to violate the policy on verifiability in order to suit some narrow interpretation of a style guideline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you that there have been such major behavioural problems in this area in the past that the community has seen fit to impose general sanctions, and that if you start mass-converting articles from one system to another, you are likely to get blocked under those sanctions. I think that's the sort of thing I would like to know if I were you. Kahastok talk 18:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

One, I am aware of those sanctions - for instance, this edit by MER-C (talk · contribs) showed up on my watchlist a month ago; Two, I am not mass-converting articles from one system to another, nor am I about to do so. Three, if you have a problem with my behaviour, take me to WP:ANI. Or WP:ARBCOM. Your choice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

All WikiProject Women-related pages

BTW, Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Green is what Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) is trying to do with those categories. I told them to seek help at Template:Metabanner, though, since that may require new banner parameters to implement properly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, there needs to be a category amalgamating talk pages for two completely distinct projects as the article alert bot can only cope with a single talk page category, and I can't see any field in Metabanner that allows a custom additional category to be tacked on the end. So I felt just putting a "vanilla" category at the end of each project template (with a side order of WP:BRD as required) would at least solve the problem. A change to Metabanner has project-wide implications that would require very careful consensus; this change at least has consensus (in as much as what the requirements and goals are) right now.

At the moment, if I don't do any further edits in this area, the main page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green is going to break the next time the bot runs, so we have to do something.

(as an aside, every now and again somebody says "why on earth did you nominate Headbomb for RfA" .... well, here's a good reason ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Presumably by Template:Metabanner you mean Template talk:WPBannerMeta - there have been no discussions there in recent weeks. But what you could do is hook {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats}} onto |HOOK_BOTTOM=.

Please note that in this edit, Ritchie333 also added two undesirable newlines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's nothing, I managed to write off a wing-mirror last year by clipping a wall :-P Anyway, so the correct code to add here is |HOOK_BOTTOM={{WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats|category=All WikiProject Women-related pages}} - right? The job queue is going to explode with a couple of hundred thousand new category entries, so I want to make sure I've got it right! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This is why we have Template:WikiProject Women/sandbox and Template:WikiProject Women's History/sandbox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"Presumably by Template:Metabanner you mean Template talk:WPBannerMeta", that's where the redirect points, I believe? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Re the article alerts requirement. Can it traverse subcategories? That is, if both Category:WikiProject Women articles and Category:All WikiProject Women-related pages were made subcategories of Category:All WikiProject Women-related pages, would it then work? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

My understand is that wouldn't work, but Hellknowz (talk · contribs) would be the one to know for sure. It may be a trival code modification. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I see what you did wrong here - you misused the |category= parameter. Try this code:

{{WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats
 |category={{{category|¬}}}
 |BANNER_NAME = {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}
 |cat 1=yes
  |CAT_1      = All WikiProject Women-related pages
}}

Help is always given at Template talk:WPBannerMeta to those who ask for it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The bot can currently traverse exactly 1 level deep into a subcategory. So Category:All WikiProject Women-related pages (new) would work if it had child categories Category:WikiProject Women articles and Category:All WikiProject Women-related pages (old) with their relevant pages directly in them. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Metrolink Platforms in Infobox for Manchester Victoria

Hi, you reverted my edits adding Metrolink platforms to the Manchester Victoria infobox. That's fine, but can we have consistency either way with the Manchester Piccadilly article? Either that should have Metrolink platforms removed from it's infobox, or Victoria should have them added. I've also added a comment on the talk page for Victoria station to see if there are any other opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.51.164 (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Israel

Hi. Why were my edits stricken? Were they not relevant? And please explain what "sock" refers to. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mithrandir the Grey: I did not strike any of your edits. "sock" refers to WP:Sock puppetry. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well, could you roll back to this edit? I think it's quite important, and it was distorted without any explanation. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Why are you asking me, and not Onceinawhile (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I asked him first, but he never answered. Why can't you do it? Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERPARENT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeeeah, but you just so happen to be the only "parent" who locked the talk page and let this guy strike my edits without any stated reason... So I'd argue it's only fair to ask you to either remove the lock, or roll back to my latest edit. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I shall do neither. If you want the protection lifted, please file a request at WP:RFPU; if I reverted any edits, that could be construed as me favouring one particular version. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to revert anything, I'm asking you to re-instate my text that was removed without explanation! That's called being neutral; letting someone strike my version, on the other hand, would not be particularly neutral.

I'll also file a request to get the talk page unlocked as you advised, but that's a separate issue. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Redrose, a few days ago you kindly protected Talk:Israel at [1]. The account (whose SPI is still pending) is still causing trouble, so I was wondering if there’s anything else that can be done. The last few times the SPI cases have blocked the socks, they just replicate immediately. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: There's one major difference: my IP was checked, and I was not confirmed as a "sockpuppet", the others were. Also, I'm the one who added the "sock-link" to the blocked user's post. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems that there is a WP:SPI open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willschmut which has not yet been closed either way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly - in the meantime the sock is causing further havoc.

The evidence, even without checkuser, is 100% certain. Yet because SPIs take time, this sock master is able to get around the system. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the investigation is actually finished. My IP was checked, and I wasn't blocked. Please get over it. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It has not yet been formally closed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It also seems that Mithrandir the Grey (talk · contribs) recently served a 24-hour block (which expired at 04:32 (UTC) today) for edit warring on Gandalf, following this report at WP:ANEW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The definition of "edit war" is very unclear to me. Hereinafter, I've decided to only revert once per dispute, then resolve it through discussion, to avoid more shit getting thrown my way. Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well now, since you posted at that ANEW discussion, you must have read at least some portion of it. At the top of the page is a pale blue box, part of which is as follows:

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Prior to that, you were served this warning which explains what edit warring is, partly through some helpful links such as in the phrase "currently engaged in an edit war". This edit indicates that you have read the message. That note was later supplemented with this one, again including some links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a bunch of fancy words, but in practice, they explain very little. Does re-instating edits that were removed without any explanation count as "reverts"? If yes, do they affect the "three-revert-rule"? Mithrandir the Grey (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"a bunch of fancy words" - if you can't understand what edit-warring means, after it has been explained to you several times, you have no place in Wikipedia. Competence is required. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edits since 4 Aug at Brett Kavanuagh

Could I ask you to look at this edit on Talk at user Seraphim here [2]. He was been asked to stop making serial reverts today and he has been previously warned about this by KnightLago. Please let me know if I should request a page restore on noticeboard to the time yesterday evening when KnightLago unprotected the page. Seraphim appears intent to force his edits into the article without consensus and discussion on Talk page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I may have made an error about 538, I thought there was agreement to remove it but reviewing the discussion there has been one additional comment since User:JohnWickTwo agreed. I'm not sure why User:JohnWickTwo is objecting now, since he supported the removal, but User:Snooganssnoogans hasn't been active on the article in a while, and I missed a comment from JTRH, so I will start a discussion and ping the previous participants. But accusations made without evidence need to stop. What edits am I trying to "force" into the article? This removal of a mild BLP violation from a sock ip [3]? Or maybe removing this random Wordpress blog [4]? Unfortunately, they don't give me enough reverts per day to keep up with the disruption on this article, let alone "force" my own edits in. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim has been asked twice today to stop forcing his edits into the article without consensus on the Talk page. He has been informed twice on his Talk page and requested twice to restore the page and to start Talk. This appears to be a repeat of 4 August when KnightLago warned him to stop serial reverts and encouraged him to start Talk. Seraphim again appears intent on forcing his edits into the article and ignoring requests to obtain consensus on Talk. Seraphim has refused all requests to seek consensus on Talk. Please restore the page to the time when KnightLago lifted the page protect yesterday evening and start Talk discussion to establish consensus first. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore the BLP violation or the WordPress source, and I don't think anyone else will either. Reverting block evading IPs making BLP violations and removing WordPress blogs is basically non-controversial. In fact, no justification has been offered for why this is even being disputed per WP:BRD. This content I removed from 538 [5] was flat out wrong by the way - it has nothing to do with "home state senators". I restored a corrected version of it here: [6]. Actually, the 538 source is just poorly written - this is why I was opposed to relying on an informal blog source in the first place. They don't mention this is based on the nomination process for the federal bench. I'm updating the citation to a mainstream press source now. The correct place to hash this out would have been the article talk page by the way, not an admin's talk page, and I want to apologize to Redrose. I won't be commenting here further. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Why are you posting here? I have never made any edits since 4 Aug (or even before 4 August) at Brett Kavanuagh (a page that does not exist). If there is some sort of dispute between you that concerns an article, the proper place is its talk page: do not spill it over onto other pages, particularly when those other pages are totally unrelated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You did do a little tidying up on the article talk page at Talk:Brett Kavanaugh, which might be why you were included in the argument. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. I have no interest in further participation in a needless edit war. JTRH (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

TOC question

Is there a way to make the default TOC collapsed at the beginning, and then if an editor wants to use it, they can click on "show"?? I tried adding a pipe followed by "collapsed" but then I get a horizontal A-Z toc instead. I just want it to start off collapsed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: I don't think so, and even if there were, it would violate MOS:COLLAPSE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - I forgot to mention that it was for my user TP - does it apply there, too? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility applies everywhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Asia topic

Oops, you declined at the same time as I carried out the request. Feel free to revert if you like, but I suspect that defeats your point. Cabayi (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it does, which is why I let the edit to {{Europe topic}} stand. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Your assistance is needed

Hello R. I hope you are well. When you have a moment would you please apply the fixes needed at the 2 John F Lewis pages that are in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. They are fully protected so I cannot get edit them. As ever thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

In both cases it was because TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) protected the page after adding the {{pp-protected}} template, instead of the other way around. BTW the |expiry= parameter is unnecessary, it's now autodetected. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 21:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. I thought I had already protected the pages when I added the template, but realized my mistake and protected them. I didn't notice the error or I would have resolved it myself. (Thanks for the tip by the way Rose.) Sorry about that MarnetteD. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries TheSandDoctor. Redrose64 is always ready to help in situations like this. I hope you both have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am also always around to help if ever needed MarnetteD --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Good to know and many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 01:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again R. This redirect Just hit the list and is fully protected so I can't get at it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It needed this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Good deal. As ever thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 20:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC ID

If you mean those tables, [7] [8], I already had updated them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: That is no good: if I had not intervened, Legobot would have undone your edits when it next ran (21:01 UTC). It is pointless trying to amend bot-built pages since the bot will always put it back to what it "knows" is correct. The pages which you have edited are the RfC listings; the tables to which I refer are private data files held on the computer where the bot runs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Category talk:Hill stations in Cambodia

I have amended it now to be two proper banners. I also went back and looked at several edits before and after and they were fine--it looks like a copy/paste error. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Redlinks

Thanks for your note (and for subtly letting the others know at the same time); that'll teach me, I suppose, trying to be clever. And this ({{diff|Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation|prev|856107895|This}}) is interesting, too; I haven't come across one before, So thanks, I've learned something else as well. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

no idea but thanks

Hi RedRose64, thanks for noticing and repairing. I have no idea how that\ happened. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

edit summaries

may seem helpful but so easily lost JarrahTree 11:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? I always use edit summaries, you need to go back to 2009 to find an edit of mine that doesn't have one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

not questioning that so much - the point was last night (my time) I was encountering a really incomplete set of categories for the station project (typical you only have to see med and milhist and the amount of cats they never bothered to tag for their project, or then even actually assess) and had tried to start a personal conversation with slambo about the fact that station project (even if it is strictly and technically is a part of trains) looks as though it could stand alone as a sub project rather than have the subsumed treatment - rather than go to the zoo (discussion page for trains project) - but hadnt checked back on slambo talk - and then I saw your edit - which seemed bizarro to me (ok you might be better equipped to understand cats and things) and I thought it would have been better as a talk page discusssion rather than talking to an edit summary. But it takes allsorts, I am probably the village idiot here. JarrahTree 11:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your comment at slambos talk page it gives the perspective on what I was thinking last night JarrahTree 12:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Could you help me get the auto-archiving going again on mine Red Rose? It broke earlier this year due to a bad edit and I can't work out how to fix it. It's now very long. Thanks! Philafrenzy (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone else kindly did it. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: You took away too much in this edit - everything above the {{archives}} controlled the archiving. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mystery Thames Barge

Hi there, please see commons:Category:Essex_(ship,_1896). Is this the Mercia? -Broichmore (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea. Why are you asking me? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I do apologise. I meant to send this to another! A case of mMistaken identity I'm afraid... Broichmore (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Tt:Divbox

I'm proposing a change at Template talk:Divbox to replace the current sub page system with Template:Divbox/styles.css. You seam to be the only active person on the page, so can you provide some insight on the proposal? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 19:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Mattcymru2

It's surely not a coincidence that User talk:Mattcymru was blocked for similar unconstructive edits to Wales articles in July 2013, then User talk:Mattcymru2 appeared in January 2014 editing similar articles. I think we're giving him a lot of rope! Sionk (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Their edits were clearly disruptive and there was some vandalism but they had a number of none vandalism contributions so I'm not sure why they were blocked as a VOA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: You'd need to ask the blocking admin, which was Slon02 (talk · contribs). @Sionk: Somebody may wish to put together a WP:SPI, which if concluded as "confirmed, blocked and tagged", would render these pages liable for speedy deletion under criterion G5. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: FYI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose if you had blatant evil intent and wanted to avoid a block, you wouldn't simply add a "2" onto your old name :) It's a shame very many of his recent edits are tendentious and I would undo them if I had the time (I don't). A few of them are useful, particularly the earlier community articles. I've tried to explain things rather than just throw warning templates at his Talk page. But continual tantrums on his part don't stand him in great stead. Sionk (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not really questining their block, just the reason for it. I agree with Sionk in this case, and I don't think G5 would be a good idea as many have been around for a while and received improvements from others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for you're efforts with them, hopefully they'll stop changing the names of the communities, Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn should have a separate article anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Newtown and Llanuwchaiarn and Newtown are the same thing, what is the purpose of creating two articles for the same thing? ok, maybe the name of the community shouldnt be changed, i didnt even change the name it just linked to Newtown. my knowledge of welsh geography is probably better than anyone else. i am frankly extremely insulted by your totalitarism. same with builth and builth wells, same thing. i imagine you will block me for complaining. such a good resource this site is, but moderated by extremely pedantic people. i will inform you, that the community of builth wells is based on the town of builth wells, they just shortened the communtiy name to builth. and you think two articles need to be made???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcymru2 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mattcymru2: Claiming "my knowledge of welsh geography is probably better than anyone else" will not help your case, it's tantamount to "I'm right and you're all wrong". How do we know that your knowledge is better? How do you know that our knowledge is worse? Wikipedia does not work that way: we have a policy on verifiability which I urge you to read. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi there Redrose64, would you be interested in adopting me? I would like some expert help in editing and policies, and I believe that you are the person I am looking for. If you choose to decline, it would also be okay. Thank you and please reply me soon! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Oshawott 12: I don't adopt anybody, not even Yellowrose63 (talk · contribs) who has asked me face-to-face. Please see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, which has a prominent link to View the list of adopters! where you will see that I am not listed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Tech admin

Would you be interested in having these rights? Not including you as one of the stopgap users seems like an oversight. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Yes, I was going to wait the thirty days for the RfC to conclude - 00:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC). It'll almost certainly be approved, and I shall accept whatever the outcome is. Once we have a formal process, I was going to put together a case as a self-nomination. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you could get it now without any issue, but up to you! :) I'll try to keep an eye on the Geonotice requests in the meantime — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Memories

Hello R. I hope you are well. This edit reminds me that Susan mentioned this right at the start in 1963 :-) One of my favorite memories of a mention on the long road to decimalisation is Plantagenet Palliser championing the cause in Can You Forgive Her?. In fact in the TV version there is a wonderful scene where PP (played by future Borusa Philip Latham) seems to be going on at length about his feelings for the woman (whose name escapes me at the moment) he is talking to. It then turns out he discussing the logic of decimalisation. Only a few days left until Jodie takes up the mantle of the Doctor :-) Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Extra line

First, thanks for fixing my mistake here. Second... Why does that extra space matter? What am I missing? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

When a template is transcluded, the whole of the template is copied to the target page. After that is done, the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags, and everything that they enclose, is removed. This means that any spaces or newlines that precede the <noinclude> remain in the target page, and can cause a visual gap. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for kind and well informed comments to my Talk post

Re Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#WikiMedia_PolicyMakers:_Talk_page_banner_directs_editor_to_bottom_of_page

From, Vid2vid (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You're an admin aren't you?

Moved to Talk:United States Army Transportation Corps class S100 § This needs to be moved back to USATC S100 Class

 – Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello R. When I checked our friend Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates just now I found almost 2500 pages in it. In hunting around I found that Template:Pp-pc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was moved today so that may have caused the influx. If it is I can't perform a null edit as the template page is fully protected. It could be something else but at least this will give you a starting point. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It was connected with the page move; the padlock template hadn't been configured to recognise itself as a valid prot icon template (say whaaa...?). Anyway, this edit should fix it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Wondrous eyed have come upon your efforts.

Just a virtual handshake hello to introduce myself. I'm simply a frequent visitor to WP who finds the content quite useful. Last Spring I choose to give back to WP as well. The few things I have done thus far will improve in form and grow in diversity as time becomes more readily available (a long term project ends next year... after a decade of distraction).

I had occasion to interact with a former user I believe you might remember. QuackGuru. I trust they are well and that the end of their account was just a simple choice. If I knew how to use templates more easily I would place this here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redrose64#/media/File:BSicon_uxmKRZqusw.svg

As time allows ask whatever question you may have. I use but a single MacBook Pro with Safari and Chrome as well as my Samsung Note5 with Edge, Bing, and Chrome as my access points. I do have an android television as well but have yet to edit with it. I live about 48 kilometers from where I was born, have traveled some but doubt I shall ever leave Manhattan permanently. It could happen, I just have to be given reason.

Your user page is inspiring and sets a new level for me as benchmark of what a person might achieve if they took the time to apply their talents.

Until next time, smile and enjoy your day, Mrphilip (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Craigendoran station

My deletion of the later opening and 1964 closing dates apply to merely two platforms of a 5 platform station. The upper and lower platforms were adjacent and treated as one station served by the same entrance and facilities. Accordingly the station was opened on the first date and is still open albeit with less platforms.Steamybrian2 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The matter referred to above has always one that I have been unsure of, so any clarification is of great help to me.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help at parapsychology

Thank you so much for your help at parapsychology. That was my first RfC and I wasn't aware that I was supposed to remove the tag to close the RfC. I've learned a lot from your comments. I will read up on the documentation regarding the things you pointed out. Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Reformatting for accessibility

Hello, you've twice now reformatted messages I posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. I must thank you for doing this for me, but I must be unaware of some formatting I'm doing carelessly so as not to maintain accessibility. My apologies. Could you help me by telling me what I must do to avoid having to bother you (or others) in the future who have to correct my mistakes? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah! After some careful scrutiny of edit histories that seemed to have changed a bit, I can now see what I've been doing and which I shouldn't do - it's mostly to do with the insertion of newlines as spacers. Thanks for cleaning them up, and I'll endeavour not to insert any unnecessary and confusing ones in future. Many thanks!  DDStretch  (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ddstretch: There are two things to consider, one is the no-blank-lines thing as described at WP:INDENTGAP, or more generally at WP:LISTGAP. The other is not to mix list styles in the wrong way, since it causes lists to be terminated and new lists started. That is, don't do this:

Thread
*Post 1
::Reply to post 1
*Post 2

or this:

Thread
*Post 1
:*Reply to post 1
*Post 2

both of which produce four lists, the third of which is a sublist to the second. Instead do this:

Thread
*Post 1
*:Reply to post 1
*Post 2

This is two lists, one being a sublist of the other. Not only is the resultant HTML much shorter, it's better for accessibility too. The easiest way to remember it is that if you are replying to a post which was indented using any form or mixture of asterisks, colons and hashes, is to copy all of the symbols from the start of the post that you are replying to, and add one more symbol (of any type) to the right-hand end of those. Then add your comment after that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. I now understand completely!  DDStretch  (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Claire Wilson redirect or Claire Wilson disambiguation

Please look at Claire Wilson (athlete) and Claire Wilson (University of Texas tower shooting), to understand why there should not be a redirect from Claire Wilson to Charles Whitman, and why I changed the redirect to a disambiguation instead, at the suggestion of other editors. The redirect to Claire Wilson (University of Texas tower shooting) was created by User talk:75.68.250.246.

Charles Whitman, an American murderer, has nothing to do with [[Claire Wilson (athlete), a British athlete residing in Jersey, and never did. If you insist on a RFD for this redirect to become a disambiguation with a redirect from Claire Wilson, I will do that. Whitman killed 16 people and injured 31 others, according to University of Texas tower shooting. Do you support redirects to the 46 people killed or injured? I could do that.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: As I have advised you before, on at least three occasions, this is a WP:RFD matter; and per WP:MULTI, it is disruptive for you to attempt to discuss it in at least six other locations (so far). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

KingSepron

Yeah i have no fucking idea how to verify the tag I gave the images, but apparently they’re going to be deleted now, and really that isn’t my problem. I’m not working for Wikipedia I’m doing this to help spread knowledge. If anyone wants to figure out how to verify the things then you’re a bloody hero — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSepron (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@KingSepron: Regarding this post: first, put new threads at the bottom of the page, see WP:BOTTOMPOST, and always sign your posts, see WP:SIGN.

Now to the points that you raise. Copyright is a serious business, and correct licensing is essential. I suggest that you read Help:Uploading images carefully. But if you cannot find out what the copyright status of an image is, or which license it may be reused under, then you must assume that the image is not available for reuse, which means that if uploaded to Wikipedia without a valid claim of fair use, it will be summarily deleted. See Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Finally: do not swear at other Wikipedia editors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKE

As the editor who introduced me to this guideline a few years ago, I was wondering if it was beneficial and in accordance with WP:NOTBROKE to, for example, change
* [[Sarah Paulson]] as [[Wilhemina Venable]], [[List of American Horror Story: Coven characters#Cordelia Goode|Cordelia Goode]], and [[List of American Horror Story: Murder House characters#Billie Dean Howard|Billie Dean Howard]]
to
* [[Sarah Paulson]] as [[Wilhemina Venable]], [[Cordelia Goode]], and [[Billie Dean Howard]]
I mean, I think it would be as there's less source text, but what do you think? Thank you (btw. you will find the source above at American Horror Story: Apocalypse#Cast and characters if you wanted to know) TedEdwards 17:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I like to change anchor links like that to redirects because you never know when the content to which you are pointing will become its own separate page. I recent helped to fix the links related to List of RoboCop video games which were all immediately converted to separate articles as it happened. --Izno (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Well, since the links via redirects Cordelia Goode and Billie Dean Howard both take you to the appropriate entries, I would say that it's a valid change. Not only does it make the source text clearer and more concise, it keeps open the opportunity for somebody to expand the redirs into full articles at some future date. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

My thanks

Thank you for your recent edits here. I'll remember the counsel in your edit summaries moving forward, and not repeat the error of my previous manner. Thanks again, and be well.--John Cline (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@John Cline: It can be confusing trying to work out how lists should be separated, also when whitespace is permitted and when it isn't.

• In the case of a class="class-list" attribute, the class-list is a space-separated list of class names; hence if a semicolon is used, that is taken as part of a class name.
• In the case of a style="declaration-list" attribute, the declaration-list is a semicolon-separated list of declarations, with optional whitespace before and after those semicolons.

It gets more complicated when you write style sheets, because another kind of list comes in with its own separator - the selector-list, which is a comma-separated list of selectors, again with optional whitespace; also, each class name is now preceded with a full stop. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm stumped

Hello R. There are a few items in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates and I can't figure out what needs to be done. I think it is South Park related but the two pages with that name were protected quite some time ago. Your help will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 15:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I did try null edits on all of the pages listed. MarnetteD|Talk 15:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I should add that the items in question are the two "South Park" pages and the three "list of longest running" articles. New pages are being added but I am removing them when I get a chance. MarnetteD|Talk 18:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: It was this edit by The Optimistic One (talk · contribs), which I have undone. I don't know why anybody thought that it was a good idea to transclude an article to seven pages in order to obtain the number of episodes, but that's what's going on: the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags filter out everything except the count, and their omission meant that the entire article was being transcluded, prot icons and all; not to mention causing a whole heap of error messages such as "Template loop detected". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it R. In my years of working with the cat I don't remember encountering this before. Always something to new to learn here at the 'pedia. Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 20:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What difference does the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tag make? Better Call Saul's fourth season hasn't got the tag and you can still get a link to the list of episodes page. The Optimistic One (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: See Help:Template#Noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude. Then have a good look at the source of Better Call Saul (season 4)#Episodes. There are <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags around the whole episode table. This means that when the page is transcluded, e.g. to List of Better Call Saul episodes#Season 4 (2018), where you will find the code {{:Better Call Saul (season 4)}} it is only the episode table that is displayed, not the rest of the article. So in South Park, where you removed the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags, this meant that the whole article was being transcluded and not just the number of episodes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I see. That makes more sense now. Thanks for the heads up. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Help

Think all of them that account has stopped them think. How do you upload articles? And can you help me to create a page or article whatever you call it! Lee sibley (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lee sibley: I really do not understand your first sentence. As for the rest of your message, see WP:YFA but also WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Good ideas, bad ideas, "wtf" situations

Thanks for the removal. I'm rather surprised I didn't notice that, but I also have no idea how it got there in the first place! Primefac (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Help

Why you delete my page ? Lee sibley (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lee sibley: I didn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It said you did and won’t let me edit. Also can you help me to make a Wikipedia page as was seen in international media for banning homework which went viral it be much appreciated if you can help!

You are not making yourself clear. What is "it"? What is the exact message that is showing? Which page can you not edit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Lee sibley: Further to your first question above: Alexf (talk · contribs) has deleted the pages Draft:Lee Sibley, Draft talk:Lee Sibley, and User:Lee sibley; all of which you created. Were you referring to one of these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've now deleted Draft talk:Lee Sibley myself, under speedy deletion criterion G8, since it was the talk page of a nonexistent or deleted page. You need to stop recreating these deleted pages, read the messages that people have left you, and understand them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

So it was also you I knew it how do you do it. Can I do the same for yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee sibley (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) No, because you do not have the right. (2) No, because you do not have the ability. (3) No, because you are blocked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

National Rail(way) Museum

In response to your edit summary on several articles.. They previously linked to National Rail Museum which redirects to National Railway Museum (disambiguation) (with lots of other countries). I was trying to make them point to National Railway Museum.— Rod ^talk 19:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, so you could simply have replaced the incorrect word "Rail" with the correct word "Railway". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

True but that option was not immediately obvious in the interface I use. At least the user now gets taken to the right article.— Rod ^talk 07:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Faked timestamps

Hi,

You recently told Blacku22 and I not to use fake timestamps and to sign our posts at the time in this edit. The only posts I (I'll let Blacku22 answer on his own) didn't sign was at the bottom of the 2nd RfC we were creating, because it was still under construction and we were fine-tuning it. I thought I'd leave it unsigned until were were ready to publish it. But I will fix that from now on. As for the fake timestamps, I've never done such a thing and I have no reason to do so. Each time I sign a post, I do it with the 4 tildes (Rush922 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)), AT the time I post. I don't wait until after. It's only now as I'm looking at it that I see the discrepancy between "Revision as of 21:00, 10 November 2018" and the timestamp of my post at the time which is 12:37. I really don't know why it's different, I can simply say that I did NOT type it manually. Again, I have no reason to. Maybe you can help me figure out why the system is signing my posts that way. Thanks.Rush922 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Okay, I've figured out why that timestamp was different. What happened was, I was trying to close the 2nd RfC and didn't remember the proper code to close it (i.e. the {closed rfc top}), so I copied the code from the first RfC, which included its timestamp. I did it quickly, so I didn't think to check the timestamp and I considered it 'signed.' So I guess it was my fault, but I didn't fake it as you implied - it was just a copy/paste error. Next time I'll be more careful.Rush922 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In this post, there is no signature: one was added some time later in this edit, but using a timestamp for that edit, not for the original. In this post there is no signature; none was added later. Similarly with this post. In this edit the timestamp is clearly faked, and almost certainly copypasted from this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that last one was the mistake I just admitted - it wasn't faked, in the sense I didn't mean to intentionally deceive anyone by it - I just copied the code to close the rfc and wasn't thinking about the timestamp. But in any case, for edits like that and for the other edits, I will be more careful in the future, thanks.Rush922 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you kindly for being there Whispyhistory (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you I didn't get home until about 21:30 on Sunday, and was busy all day Monday and Tuesday. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC at People's Mujahedin of Iran

Hi Redrose64, I was trying to remove a request for RfC close that has been withdrawn (the request for RfC close is still active). Could you help me with this please? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: First, please don't modify somebody else's post except within WP:TPO. You added the {{close}} template to Cunard's request. Instead, you should have added it as a new comment, indented with one colon (in accordance with WP:THREAD) and supplemented that with an explanatory statement and your signature. You should also have added the |done=yes parameter to the {{initiated}} template. But that aside, the RfC was not withdrawn: it ran the full thirty days, after which Legobot (talk · contribs) removed the {{rfc}} template. Accordingly, Cunard's request at WP:AN/RFC was valid.

Second, you performed a manual archive to a page that is set up for bot archiving, and in so doing, created an archive page that was given a number not expected by the archiving bot, which continued to use the previous archive page. When a page is set up to be archived by a bot, it is almost always best to leave archiving for the bot to perform - some bots will fixup inward links, make sure that certain templates are deactivated, and perform various other cleanup tasks. Once an RfC thread is archived, it is no longer possible to give it a formal closure without going against the principles of talk page archiving. It would have been best if you had confined your actions to those described at WP:RFCEND.

Your attempts to hold an RfC at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran suggest that you should make yourself thoroughly familiar with the WP:RFC process before trying to start another one. By my reckoning, there have been seven RfCs held on that talk page, four since June 2018 (which is when you first posted there), two of which were initiated by yourself: RFC about the article's lead section; RfC on article's timeline. Just hold a normal discussion, don't attempt to formalise it as a RfC, don't stuff your posts with unreadable walls of text, be sparing with references, take heed of what others are saying, and it'll all work out in the end. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Redrose. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

WikIProject Country templates

Instead of manually editing each page with a snarky edit summary, it would be simpler and quicker to simply create the appropriate wrapper template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 17 November 2018‎

@BrownHairedGirl: No: not all WikiProjects have templates. In some cases (such as Women in Red), this is intentional; in others (like Comoros), it is because the "WikiProject" is actually a task force within a larger WikiProject (in this case Africa), which has its own template. See WP:COUNCIL.

Instead of accusing me of being "snarky", ask yourself: why did I do that? Even if you don't WP:PREVIEW your edits, a simple check of what you had saved would have revealed the redlink that is indicative of a problem. Every week I go through Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates to fix up the redlinked WikiProject banners left on talk pages by people who didn't even notice their errors. It's mostly the same names every time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. @Redrose64, please do stop being silly. You and I have had this discussion several times before, so my answer should be very familiar to you.

But since you seem to have chosen to ignore previous discussions, I will repeat what I said before. Adding a "WikiProject FoooCountry" banner to a talk page is an easily-automated job, done by AWB. I have no intention of doing it manually, or of previewing every edit for such a trivial task. The alternative to simply whacking the save button repeatedly for that job is that I simply don't add "WikiProject FoooCountry" banners at all, and I think that would be a net loss to Wikipedia.

In the case of countries which do not have their own template, there is a simple solution which allows this to work to everyone's satisfaction: create a wrapper template. There are now 174 of them in Category:WikiProject banner wrapper templates, and takes less than minute to create a new one ... as I have just done with e.g. Template:WikiProject Dominion of Newfoundland, Template:WikiProject Serbia and Montenegro and Template:WikiProject Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

Why do you persist in trying to behave like a compliance cop about this persistent issue, rather adopting the simple and lightweight technical solution which allows editors to continue their workflow without the non-existent-banner ever bugging anyone else ever again? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I have now created a wrapper template (or redirect, as appropriate) for 13 of the 20 templates currently listed in the current revision Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates.

Just like creating redirects to articles, this simple step means that we now we have a permanent solution in each of those 20 cases. Editors can continue to work in the way which they find easiest, and you will be no longer troubled by their work.

That should make everyone happy. In theory.

However, I am sorry to say that having had several run-ins with you over this very issue, I come away with a strong impression that on this subject you have a strong preference for aggrieved reproach rather than simple problem-solving.

You do a lot of great work, so I wish that my otherwise high regard for you was not tarnished by your surliness about this recurring-and-fixable technical glitch.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you certain that each of those WikiProjects wanted a banner to be created? Are you also certain that a WikiProject of that name actually exists? {{WikiProject Dominion of Newfoundland}} (which you created today), for example: there is no WP:WikiProject Dominion of Newfoundland that this would logically belong to, although there is a WP:WikiProject Newfoundland: this redirects to WP:WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador, which is believed to be inactive, but there is no corresponding {{WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador}}. There is a {{WikiProject Newfoundland}}, but you also created that today.

When I add WikiProject banners to a talk page, I always check that they actually exist; if I'm not sure, I go to the talk page of an article that is primarily about the topic. So, in this case I would look at Talk:Dominion of Newfoundland and see that it has banners as follows:

{{WikiProject British Empire}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Canada|nl=yes|class=B|importance=Mid}}

so clearly there is no point in attempting to use a WikiProject banner specific to the Dominion of Newfoundland since even its own talk page doesn't have one. Similarly with {{WikiProject Comoros}} and Talk:Comoros.

Since you mention AWB, and also state "I have no intention ... of previewing every edit", I will remind you of AWB rule 1 which states "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving." After the list of rules, it states "Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled". You are an administrator, so I cannot take away your AWB rights; but that does not mean that you can ignore the AWB rules either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Redrose64, are you being deliberately obstructive? Seriously?

All that stuff about "certain that a WikiProject of that name actually exists" etc entirely misses that point of the exercise.

In mass tagging with country banners, my aim is simple: to tag with the banner of the country WikiProject, or failing that with appropriate regional WikiProject. I am concerned with the end result, which is to have the appropriate banner on the page.

For example, did you take a few seconds to look at Template:WikiProject Dominion of Newfoundland, and see what it says there? Or a few seconds more to test it in use? If you did those things, you would see that it displays exactly the same banner as directly entering {{WikiProject Canada|nl=yes}}, and that it also categorises correctly.

That's all. To do that in an repetitive way, I simply want to be add "WikiProject countryname", and have that achieve the desired result. That's all.

I really could not give a damn whether a WikiProject of that name exists, because that is not the point of the exercise.

If you want to find me a WikiProject which says "please do not tag a page with our project banner unless the template you apply has the same name as our project", then you may have a point. But do you really think that any WikiProject consisting of sane editors will say that even tho a page is within its scope, it doesn't want its banner applied there via redirect or a wrapper template? Do you seriously think, for example, that WikiProject European Union would be concerned that some pages within its scope were tagged with the project banner via a redirect from Template:WikiProject European Economic Community? Even tho there are 4 other redirects to that banner?

And quit all that carp about AWB rules. I know the rules perfectly well, and I abide by them. What happened in this case was that about 30 out a run of ~3,000 WPbanner-applying edits used a template which did not exist, about which should exist ... and when I became aware of the problem, I created the templates.

If you seriously believe that I am in beach of the AWB rules, then you know where WP:ANI is. Go ahead and complain: but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. ANI doesn't usually respond kindly to editors who waste time and energy picking pointless fights rather than taking a few simple technical steps to solving a simple problem. In particular, I remind you that you are an admin, and WP:ADMINCOND says "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". Your pointless, nit-picking obstructionism here is neither respectful nor civil, and your blatantly false allegation that I sacrificed quality for speed such utter nonsense that it borders on the malicious, because you know well that the edits concerned were syntactically and semantically correct.

When you saw those non-existent banners, all you needed to do was drop me a quick note saying "You applied some non-existent WPbanners. See WP:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates. Please fix". But instead you have created a pointless drama based entirely on your sustained aversion to problem-solving. You have now had more than enough of my time this evening. So if you want to escalate yourself into trouble, open an ANI complaint and I will see you there; otherwise it's goodnight from me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template : Trent Valley Line

You updated this template on 30 October 2018 and wishing to print a hard-copy of that last update to show to one of my sons, I attempted to do so in the normal way, but all that occurred was that just a single line at the top of the page was printed and nothing whatsoever of the line details. I wonder if anything untoward has occurred when the last template update was made that may have caused this problem.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: This is my edit. If you go to the previous version, can you print that? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased to report all is now well regarding this matter.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with signatures

You started helping me on why my signature was horrible because of two reasons Now I shortened it to 164 characters: Nikospatras ^[Chat] Is the markup still Horrible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikospatras (talk • contribs) 11:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawal of RfC

User:Redrose64, I wish to withdraw my RfC on the Talk:Jarash, Jerusalem, until I am able to come-up with a more concrete source that connects the village with Josephus' remarks. How do you I withdraw the RfC?Davidbena (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davidbena: it's covered at WP:RFCEND; the only essential thing is to remove the {{rfc}} template. You can also add an explanation; if you like, you can add {{closed rfc top}} just below the section heading, and {{closed rfc bottom}} at the bottom of the section. You can use the |result= parameter of {{closed rfc top}} to put your explanation in. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have used your templates to close the RfC.Davidbena (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Fine, except you didn't sign it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops! I just now went back over it and signed it. Thanks for telling me.Davidbena (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirects about actors

I was wondering if you knew if there was a guideline or policy regarding redirects such as Kyle Allen (actor), with this redirect about an actor redirecting to one of the shows/films he's done. I'm asking because I'm sure I've seen a few redirects like this before, and I don't see the point because you are not going to find out much about Kyle Allen by looking at this article about a show he once did, and why is it this article picked rather one about one of his other works? TedEdwards 21:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: How many notable works has he appeared in? If The Path is the only one, this is covered by WP:BIO1E. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that might have been true until a few weeks ago when he appeared in American Horror Story: Apocalypse. The difference is he appears to have starred in the Path, but didn't star in AHS, although in the first 3 episodes at least played a fairly major character, mentioned plenty of times in our plot summaries for first and second episode (although I'm not sure if saying that's WP:OR or not) and the actor has a mention on the FX website (the production company that makes AHS). Thank you for your reply TedEdwards 00:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Redrose64. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

5551 text

You do realise the way the description was spelt before is the original text for the image when I uploaded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: What are you talking about? Your post makes little sense. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting information

Fair enough, one of my captions was too long, but this edit is ridiculous. Also, if you remove information from a caption, please move it somewhere else. Don't simply delete stuff that someone has taken the trouble to add. Thank you. Mypix (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You should have put it in the article text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. Please do not reinstate them. Two sentences is NOT too long for a caption. Thank you for your cooperation. Mypix (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you read MOS:CAPTION, particularly "Captions should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page, or in the main text.". I will add WP:V and WP:NOR to that, not to mention WP:EW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mypix: Further to that, why are you also reverting the replacement of the arbitrary |col=00008B with the agreed |col={{BR(S) colour}}? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"succinct" is open to interpretation. I do not agree with you that the caption is unreasonable. I think it is entirely within reasonable limits and contains only relevant information. I do not accept that your opinion on this should prevail simply because you say it should. Please note also that I do not take kindly to being accused of edit-warring and threatened with a block when YOU are the one who is edit-warring; at least, you are edit warring just as much as me. On the other point about the colour, sorry, that was just an oversight. I have restored that. Mypix (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mypix: I offer as evidence the recent page history. There is one revert by myself, one by MarnetteD (talk · contribs), and three by you. Now read WP:EW again - in particular the part about WP:3RR - and tell me why you think I should be blocked but you should not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Your first edit also counts. Just because you left part of it intact, it still counts as a revert of the other part. Regarding the other editors, yes, it's funny how those other people suddenly took such an interest in this obscure little article, that has had just a handful of edits in the past ten years, and decided to weigh in on your side against my very uncontentious and reasonable edit. I wonder why that was? Mypix (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

To obtain a wider discussion, I added this, but I do not know how to attract eyes* to it. If you know, perhaps you could advise, or please do this yourself if you wish. Mypix (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC) * BTW, that's neutral eyes, not people that you invite along to agree with you.

@Mypix: I invited nobody. I take it you refer to the edits by MarnetteD (talk · contribs) and Sladen (talk · contribs)? Can you find any evidence that I invited either of them to take any action at all? Have you asked them why they made the edits that they did? BTW, I advised you to read WP:3RR, so in view of that, you should take note that following this fourth revert you are now in danger of being reported to WP:ANEW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You must admit that, on the face if it, it looks very suspicious. You revert my edit twice, and then, very conveniently, someone else pitches up to this obscure and extremely low-traffic article to do the next revert for you (as it seemed). I wonder how they became aware of this tiny issue. However, if it is the case that they independently do genuinely object to my caption purely on its own merits, and are not engaged in partisan voting or favouritism, then I am happy retract that suggestion. Anyway, while I am not at all happy with the situation, or the way that I alone have been singled out and accused of "edit-warring", for now I will see what comes up on the discussion page. Mypix (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mypix: you weren't just "accused of" edit warring. You actually edit warred. WP:3RR is an unambiguous bright-line rule, and you broke it. It's good that you accept the need to discuss rather than continue warring though. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Thank you for your sentiments, but please note the important phrase "I alone". I'm afraid it is the one-sided nature of this treatment that cannot go unnoticed. While it takes two, or indeed in this case three or four, to tango, apparently only one is singled out for warnings and threats, and only one is required to "accept the need to discuss rather than continue warring", while others engage in the same behaviour with apparent impunity, or mysteriously arrive mob-handed at an extremely low-profile article, eager to line up and repeatedly remove another editor's minor and pretty uncontroversial factual explanation of what a photo depicts. One party even had the nerve to slap a threatening notice on my talk page accusing me of exactly what he was engaged in doing himself! If warnings are to be issued then they should be issued equally to all parties by an uninvolved administrator, and all parties should be required to desist and discuss, not just one. As for so-called "3RR" itself, generally speaking, who hits three first depends fairly arbitrarily on whether it falls as ABABAB or BABABA. It is not morally important who is A and who is B. (Please note that I am not saying this was the exact pattern of editing here, just using an illustration.) Mypix (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mypix: I have demonstrated where you made four reverts to that article, all in less than 24 hours. Now, please will you show where I have made four reverts to that article within any 24-hour period. If you can't find them, shall we say three reverts to an article of your choice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we both know perfectly well that you began your "edit war" when you removed my description for the second time. Mypix (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

PAGE MOVE HELP

Hey there! I need help with the moving of Ghairat (Pakistani television series) to Ghairat since it’s creation protected. Thanks :) VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 05:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: Why are you asking me? Your first contact should be the admin who set the create protection on Ghairat, which according to the page's logs (reproduced in the pink box when you visit the page) was There'sNoTime (talk · contribs); but please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghairat and also WP:CSD#G4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

All right, noted. :) VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 15:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC

Sorry I didn't understand your edit summary - is there something wrong with my adding a lengthier comment in the extended discussion section? I'm not planning to say much further during the course of the discussion, unless there is a very compelling reason to get involved. But I'm not sure how much more neutral and brief the RfC statement itself can be - is the extended discussion showing up in the bot listing or something? Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: You can include whatever comments you like (within reason), but you should remember that when Legobot (talk · contribs) adds the RfC to the listing pages, it copies everything from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to the first timestamp (inclusive), with this result. This is neither neutral nor brief. The brevity problem is addressed by adding a second signature (or simply a timestamp) before the subheading, so that Legobot knows where to stop copying - in a few minutes time, this edit will be made, reflecting my edit. The neutrality issue is something that should be left to you - and I see that EtienneDolet (talk · contribs) has already left a post to that effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry, I didn't know all that - I will try to remember to add a signature next time. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Epsom

Becaause the link is new, and will be part of zone 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiggyTimmy (talk • contribs) 00:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@RiggyTimmy: What link is new? Which zone 6 is the link going to be part of? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Redrose64 I think they mean London fare zone 6.

RiggyTimmy It's not part of Zone 6 yet, and it's not been confirmed if/when it will be, see [9]. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Epsom, yes the link is new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiggyTimmy (talk • contribs) 01:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It is still unclear what you are talking about: for instance, what is "the link"? If you have suggestions for improving an article, they may be placed on the article's talk page. Also, there is no need to start a new section here when your comment is apparently related to the thread immediately above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Heald Green railway station

On Heald Green , transpennine dont stop there after the may 2018 timetable change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.164.100 (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You are persistently removing sourced content, replacing it with content which is not sourced. This is against the policy on verifiability. Also, your edits are causing damage to the routebox. You are reverting without acknowledging the problems that you are causing. All in all, you are being disruptive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion to "The King's Demons"

Hi Redrose, I see you reverted my change to "The King's Demons." I am familiar with WP:SPOILER, but I was surprised to see most of what was going to happen revealed in the second paragraph. A key part of the story was discovering that an imposter King John was being controlled by the Master. I had never seen that episode before, I went to take a quick look at the WP introduction and cast, and it gave away numerous plot points that I would have rather watched evolve myself. I just don't find it is necessary to give away key points in the lede to accomplish encyclopedic goals, especially according to the following.

The WP:SPOILERS document confuses me a bit, seeming variable on the priorities of the lede and other content. On one hand it implies that it is good to have spoilers in their labeled section (i.e. Plot). Second, it suggests that the lede shouldn't worry about spoilers over proper conten. Third, it says that. "Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." If the article is supposed to do that, and the lede overview that, well, I don't think we are there yet.

Regarding neutral POV, perhaps because you mentioned that because I said the doctor "sets things right" (meant slightly tongue-in-cheek, because that is what he "does" in almost every episode). I can certainly revise that to a more encyclopedic style. However, the lede now seems written more for fans to keep track of episodes than as an encyclopedia entry.

Aside from spoilers in the intro,I don't have a strong stance on whether Doctor Who articles should focus on fan or academic aspects.. Although I know all Wikipedia is supposed to all be academic, I am not seeing that with with a *lot* of other pop culture articles (not to mention a surprisingly high number of key concept articles in general.)

Would like to know if there some a possible middle ground. Regarding the NPOV, perhaps it would be more relevant to focus on the Doctor's purpose of correcting history to ensure the signing of the Magna Carta? And why that might be an important goal?

Looking forward to your thoughts, Thanks, Peacedance (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC fix

Re this, thanks for the fix and the ping. I have a vague memory of a situation where the proper fix was to remove the rfcid. Some of this stuff baffles me after 5 years editing, and that's generally an indicator of a poor design. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There are several situations when you need to remove the |rfcid=, they include:

• Maintenance because of bugs in Legobot:
  • User is adding one or more rfc categories when there were none beforehand - otherwise Legobot continues to list the RfC in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted
  • User is removing one or more rfc categories - otherwise Legobot continues to list the RfC in the pages for the categories that were removed
  • The rfc is being moved from one page to another, i.e. not a regular WP:MOVE but a cut & paste move, perhaps to a subpage or a venue more appropriate than the original one (example)
• Cleaning up after user errors:
  • Two RfCs that have the same |rfcid= value (example) - this can happen if a second {{rfc}} template is added to a page (usually in a different discussion) before Legobot has visited the first to add a |rfcid=, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Multiple RfCs on one page
  • somebody started a new RfC, but copied the {{rfc}} template including its |rfcid= parameter from one discussion page to another (example)
  • somebody altered the Legobot-assigned value to a different value (example)

I've spent three or four years analysing how Legobot behaves, and still haven't got it all worked out.

Of course this means you can never retire. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Helping me understand markup

Hello there. How are you?

Because you are better with markup, please help me understand why after is better than before here and here.

Many thanks and my very best wishes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I now know why you changed this. Because an url prevents 'WhatLinksHere' from working, right? :) I will always use hyperlinks now when appropriate.

(Also, I now know that "What Links Here" is a phrase used by someone with poor English at a butcher's when inquiring about sausage selection.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Maybe you missed the message or forgot. :) Please help me understand. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I did see it, but time has been tight recently - it's been a struggle to keep on top of my watchlist, and some entries which deserve a proper response have been set aside, this is one such case. I now have a couple of spare days. Anyway:

For your first diff: this is MOS:LISTGAP and I forgot to link that in my edit.

For your second diff: this is also about accessibility, but mainly concerns semantics. HTML provides three main kinds of list. In Wikimarkup, asterisks produce an unordered list, which represents a list of items, where the order of the items is not important - that is, where changing the order would not materially change the meaning of the document. Also in Wikimarkup, the hash character will produce an ordered list, which represents a list of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that changing the order would change the meaning of the document. Such lists may be given a type, which can be used to specify the kind of marker to use in the list, in the cases where that matters (e.g., because items are to be referenced by their number/letter). This is precisely your intention: that people refer to the various options as A, B and C; unfortunately, our hash markup will only produce the 1, 2, 3 ... type. To obtain the A, B, C ... type, we need to use HTML markup.

For your third diff: yes, it's partly a "What Links Here" concern. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I filed phab:T202083 shortly ago and then discovered it was a duplicate of a 2005 task. Oof. --Izno (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: This isn't the same thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs) did this:

*'''A''': Prominent items from iconic films
*'''B''': Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
*'''C''': Something else?

which emits the HTML

<ul><li><b>A</b>: Prominent items from iconic films</li>
<li><b>B</b>: Any item of film memorabilia that has an article</li>
<li><b>C</b>: Something else?</li></ul>

which is an unordered list, and looks like this:

• A: Prominent items from iconic films
• B: Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
• C: Something else?

whereas I would prefer to use an ordered list:

<ol type=A><li>Prominent items from iconic films
<li>Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
<li>Something else?
</ol>

which looks like this:

1. Prominent items from iconic films
2. Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
3. Something else?

Your phab ticket is about ordered lists, but not for setting the type to something other than numeric - it concerns setting a start value other than 1. It's actually the same technique that I used five years ago at The Sun Shines Bright (book) (and somewhere else at least a year earlier than that). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It's fundamentally the same issue--we can't set any attributes on a list element. Order/start, class, ID, etc. --Izno (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries about the late reply.

Okay, hyperlinks not urls, now I know why.

So for responses, avoid colons, but rather use stars then more and more stars, got it.

The ordered lists and html makes my head spin and looks like a lot of work. Simple stars is something the community can understand in edit mode. And in edit mode with html, the ABCs vanish and the whole thing looks unnecessarily complicated. I don't understand the reason for it. Is it essential, or can I stick with the stars?

Many thanks for the thoughtful response. Please understand that most users see all this <ol type=A><li> stuff and think why not *A?

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: MOS:LISTGAP isn't about avoiding colons, it's about constructing correctly-formed lists and keeping accessibility in mind. Essentially, when you want to reply to a post that is already marked up with asterisks, colons or even hashes (or a mixture of these), you should copy the markup from the start of the post that you're replying to, start a new line (without leaving any blank lines), paste the symbols that you've copied, and add one symbol to the right-hand end of those that you've just pasted. So, when you come across posts like this:

*'''B''' We have few in the category ...
*'''C''' I think any item which has ...
*'''A''' and '''B''', if it a big ...

and you want to respond to the first two, valid formats would be either

*'''B''' We have few in the category ...
*:I'd like to add to my criterion ...
*'''C''' I think any item which has ...
*:Actually, there are only a handful of ...
*'''A''' and '''B''', if it a big ...

(that is, paste the asterisk and add a colon to its right) or

*'''B''' We have few in the category ...
**I'd like to add to my criterion ...
*'''C''' I think any item which has ...
**Actually, there are only a handful of ...
*'''A''' and '''B''', if it a big ...

(paste the asterisk and add another asterisk to its right) but not

*'''B''' We have few in the category ...
::I'd like to add to my criterion ...
*'''C''' I think any item which has ...
::Actually, there are only a handful of ...
*'''A''' and '''B''', if it a big ...

or

*'''B''' We have few in the category ...
:*I'd like to add to my criterion ...
*'''C''' I think any item which has ...
:*Actually, there are only a handful of ...
*'''A''' and '''B''', if it a big ...

Simple stars is something the community can understand in edit mode, true; and similarly, the community can understand hashes in edit mode. The problem with hashes - as far as this particular example is concerned - is that they can only make ordered lists that are formatted 1, 2, 3 ... and not A, B, C ... If you had chosen to number your options, instead of using letters, we could have made the list as follows:

#Prominent items from iconic films
#Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
#Something else?

and that would have made a valid ordered list, with the items numbered 1, 2 and 3. Screen reader users like Graham87 (talk · contribs) can explain (far better than I can) about the importance of using a correctly-formed ordered list rather than something that merely looks like an ordered list (but which is actually faked-up from different elements that give the appearance but not the semantics). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have it now: Copy what is already there and add another symbol like star or colon, whichever seems right.

Many thanks.

Oh, and you replied indented with a colon, so I used two, no stars. Was that okay?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The post that I was replying to - yours of 22:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC) - had no indentation at all. So there were no symbols to copy; no symbols plus one symbol makes one symbol, and the one symbol that I used was a colon. I could have used an asterisk - but WP:INDENT recommends the use of colons alone. Your reply used two colons, and that is appropriate - but you also left blank lines, contrary to MOS:LISTGAP. These blank lines terminate the list and start another, which is what we're trying to avoid. I have removed those blank lines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Even *I* wasn't that that familiar with the ordered list types ... but semantically correct HTML elements are a bit nicer for screen reader users like me because we can navigate between things like lists and list items with one keystroke, and having them marked-up correctly makes it easier to tell what's where. Graham87 06:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The blank lines! Okay, I think I have it now. I remember the olden days when things were simple. You just typed.

Here in China, years ago, the cashier said the price, and you'd give her some money. Done. Now, you get asked if you have a vip card, get offered a bunch of stuff, get credits or something you have to sign for, have to use your phone and scan that square thing with the black and white bits, and all that. It takes forever. Tom Hanks was right. Typewriters!

Oh, the space between the paragraphs is okay, right, because they're paragraphs?

Finally, did you actually type {{diff|User talk:Redrose64|prev|872596081|removed}} rather than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redrose64&diff=prev&oldid=872596081 removed]? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Confusion on a talk page about an actor's notability - input please?

Hi RedRose,

Sorry if this is a bit long, but there's a bit of an issue I would like help with. I think we've exhausted other options and so I'm trying to get some uninvolved admins like you for an unbiased opinion. On the talk page of Indian actor Sara Ali Khan there is an issue with notability. I know you may/may not be familiar with Indian film people, but this is more an issue of article creation. Let me break down what happened:

The subject is an Indian actress from a prominent film family (and thus whose notability had earlier been debated on grounds of popularity) who just released her first film on 7 December, 3 days ago. Her second film is set to release on 28 December, just weeks away. Her second film is set to release on 28 December, just weeks away. In late November it was discussed/decided that her page should be kept a redirect (and thus the article in the draft stage) until further consensus, as at that time she had not released her first film. On December 7, I submitted the draft for a review to be moved into mainspace; an advanced user told me that she didn't qualify for notability, as the WP:NACTOR guidelines state that she needs to have multiple (i.e. more than 1 film) releases, and that I should wait until 28 December to resubmit. I accepted this.

In the meantime that day, some users started editing that page, believing she passed notability and not reading/realizing there was a consensus not to. Later, some editors reverted these edits, several times, and an admin eventually protected the page. So for the time being, the previous consensus was kept.

The on 8 December, user:DBigXray started up the article creation again, to which user:Qualitist disagreed, saying (as I myself was told) that there should be more than 1 release for an actor. DBigXRay disagreed, asserting that as per General Notability Guidelines, not Actor Notability, she qualifies to have her own article, and brought discussion to the talk page.

Then, approx between 10:00-11:22, DBigXray and Qualitist were arguing on the talk page over the fact that consensus had not been achieved, with Qualitist wanting to get more users' input. While this was going on, Krimuk2.0 and DBigXray kept on editing and adding to the article. That is what I mostly disagree with, as they had not gotten any kind of consensus to do so , yet simply decided she was notable on their own and went ahead with editing it. Seven hours later, Cyphoidbomb agreed on her notability, and then I chimed in and said that I took issue with it. I pinged a few other users, who didn't have a strong opinion either way. As of writing this now, I still don't believe consensus was achieved fairly.

So I want to bring you and a few uninvolved admins in for your thoughts. As per the reasoning of Krimuk2.0 and DBigXray, Krimuk2.0 said, "I think it's quite appropriate to have the article in the mainspace now as her debut performance has garnered significant commentary and coverage, and her second release is right around the corner." But where does one put a limit on 'right around the corner?' Aren't they using WP:CRYSTALBALL to judge based on a future release, even if it is only a few weeks away? There is another actress, Janhvi Kapoor, who had her first release in July of this year - her second confirmed release is in 2020. Like Sara, Janhvi comes from a prominent film family, and after her release she was much talked about in the press. I created a draft page for her a while ago, but as she only had 1 film, she was declared ineligible for a page. Now this is not a case of WP:Sourgrapes as Krimuk2.0 had accused me, as I let go of attachment to that article long ago. But I do want things to be done fairly- so why would they give Sara Ali Khan her page but not Janhvi? I just want to know if Sara should indeed have her own page now, or if she should still be under redirect. Please let me know your thoughts - preferably on the Sara Ali Khan talk page itself. Thanks very much.Rush922(talk) 08:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rush922: Why are you WP:CANVASSing admins (myself, Amorymeltzer and Materialscientist) instead of using the normal channels? In fact, what gives you the impression that I know anything at all about this actor?

Anyway, you have an ongoing discussion at its talk page, that is good: if you want to bring in more opinions, the WP:RFC process is available. The template would be {{rfc|bio|media}} but please ensure that the avenues described at WP:RFCBEFORE have been tried. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the RfC, since we already had a discussion going on the talk page, calling for an RfC didn't cross my mind, but that's a better way to go. And to be fair, I don't think I Canvassed because I am not seeking to shape the outcome in any particular way, in fact what I was doing is what is stated at the top of that page: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." And I realize that you may not know this actor (I mentioned that at the beginning), yet as an admin I figure you knew more about page creation policy and so I wanted your opinion. In any case, I will try the other avenues first that you recommended, and not go by the other admins unless needed again.Rush922(talk) 10:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Wryde

You have reverted my entry on Wryde station as 'guesswork' and I'm not sure why. As a new poster I find this rather dispiriting. OS map seems good evidence. That it is narrow gauge is strongly suggested by the map showing the lines not joining but running parallel. If there is a specific general issue here, please advise, as I would suggest that the small number of agricultural tramways are worth recording on wikipedia. I'm still working out how best to link a map view (as a link? as a reference?) Please advise. Glucosamine (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Glucosamine: Words like "possibly" imply that a certain amount of speculation has been made. Wikipedia has certain core policies, including those on original research and verifiabilty. Basically: if it's your considered opinion, which cannot be supported by reliable published sources, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Zodiac Seats U.S.

Please leave the RFC in place at Talk:Zodiac Seats U.S., as I am trying to get more feedback on the name change. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Please don't, what you have essentially done is start two separate discussions on the same matter, this goes against WP:MULTI. The WP:RM process exists as a dedicated venue for page renaming discussions, it has its own notifications system, and is also part of article alerts. There is no need to hold a WP:RFC as well. Please also note that RM lasts for seven days, but RfC lasts for thirty. By the time that the RfC closes, the RM will be long expired.

Also: why did you remove the |rfcid=57B5A9B in this edit? It has caused Legobot to issue another one, and it has also broken inward links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply - @Redrose64:, I created a new RFC so that it would properly post to the RFC site. I wish that the RFC were not removed in the first place. With the number of responses that I have been given, I have a feeling that the move discussion could get relisted. The number of responses that I have gotten is quite minimal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: I see that Steel1943 (talk · contribs) agrees with me, although their technique was different. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

London stations infobox

Hey RedRose

I'll be honest, that whole thing confused me. Once Wiki starts to look like computer programming my head just gives up. I tried what I thought worked then stayed well alone. doktorb _words^deeds 10:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello Redrose64, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this edit. Sorry, this was my first time closing a requested move. Next time (if there is a next time) I'll try to remember. Would you mind taking a minute to look at my close? I want to make sure I didn't mess anything else up... --DannyS712 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)