User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 24

"please don't mess with my sig"

I didn't. Substitution of HTML and Unicode character entity codes with the actual Unicode characters they encode is something that the beta edit conflict resolver does automatically, a bit like AWB's General Fixes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That seems to me a very dubious behaviour for it to do. Interfering with other people's comments or sigs is not something an automated tool should be doing, because how does it know the intention behind it. The unicode escape might have been deliberately intended, to demonstrate something. I think the edit conflict resolver is probably a bad idea generally, as a software engineer I'm well aware of the difficulty of merging branched files and it is something with the potential to go wrong if not verified carefully by a human. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It shouldn't do that, but apparently it did, with your name all over it. I use the hex entity for a good reason: not all browsers are capable of displaying that character, just as not all browsers can display the "😼" character in your sig; and of those that can display 🌹 as something other than a box, the appearance differs between Chrome, Firefox and IE. Users who see the box can then go to a website like Uniview 12, enter that hex value (1f339) into the "Find" box and click the down-arrow to the right of that in order to perform a search. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit conflict resolver shouldn't be doing that, if that's truly the root cause, and should get a phab ticket accordingly. (I am a bit skeptical the resolver is the system at fault here--the issue reminds me of WP:WIKEDNBSP.) --Izno (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This clearly isn't intended, given that it happens even when doing so clearly changes the results (My signature, {{3x|p}}ery (talk) becomes pppery (talk), see Special:Diff/882571877) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reported this as a bug, based on very limited information, at T220067. Feel free to amend and correct my report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

2 socks

Hi R. If you take a look at the edit history you'll see that Dopenguins was using both an IP and Netto Tax. So in reverting one sock I messed up letting the other get away with things. My apologies. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Two different IPs, to be precise. Both of the IPs and NettoTax are blocked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It was late here when I was dealing with them. I did report one of the IPs at the SPI. A busy little bee that one. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thessaloniki Airport

Hello, you recently removed the RfC from the Thessaloniki Airport discussion with the reasoning that it doesn't need to be both. I understand that it does not need to be both, but given that that article has been moved back and forth numerous times, and given also that the inclusion of the name "Makedonia" or "Macedonia" in the title is indicative of POV-pushing for the sake of including the name in the article title (even though it accounts for 7% of total google searches), the circumstances necessitate the involvement of more editors (and specifically editors not involved with the topic and who are involved in WP projects relating to style and guidelines). That is the reason the RfC was opened, and I would like to ask that you reinstate it. --Michail (blah) 20:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Philly boy92: The presence of both {{rfc}} and {{requested move/dated}} was interfering with the processes of both Legobot (talk · contribs) and RMCD bot (talk · contribs), with undesirable effects at several pages including Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions. Another reason is that an RM is by its very nature a request for comment, albeit one with narrow boundaries. There is no need to use both processes, this has been discussed several times, most recently at WT:RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Type F Interlock Coupler Is NOT an "InterLock" Coupler

Type F Interlock Coupler Is NOT the same as a Type H TightLock Coupler; they are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBTwain (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@NBTwain: When did I say this? Please provide WP:DIFFs if you wish to question an edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

And remember that with a buckeye coupling, weight has nothing to do with it. Mind you, Scharfenburg makes one lazy, doesn't it? ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Sorry, what is this in relation to? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your OP has invested much/some of their time on the Scharfenberg article. "Don't know they're born!" springs to mind  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 16:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You mean these edits? They made a mess of the image captions, and added forced image sizes that were unnecessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Excatly. They should, metaphorically, begin with the buckeye before moving onto the scharfenberg...  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Anamyd and British Rail Class 158 and British Rail Class 360

user:Anamyd is threatening to try to WP:EDITWAR WP:OFFTOPIC information into British Rail Class 158 and British Rail Class 360 which there is no talk page concensus for. Tony May (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tony May: If they are edit warring, see WP:EW; and if WP:3RR is violated, file a case at WP:ANEW. Otherwise, WP:BRD applies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

RFCs

Thanks for the revert on IPv6--I'd thought the RFCs were IETF RFC's. I was unaware of Wikipedia RFC's!! Sorry about that. --Daviddwd (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Daviddwd: Some offsite RfCs may be linked using square brackets, such as [[rfc:1738]] → rfc:1738. A WP:PREVIEW always helps. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Got it. I didn't know that. I'm a big template and VisualEditor guy; from now on I'll be using the {{IETF RFC}} template. --Daviddwd (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Why should I never use Wikipedia as a ref source? C2A (Homebase | Telephone | Site changes) 15:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) C2A The main reason is that WikiP is WP:USERGENERATED. MarnetteD|Talk 16:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

See also WP:CIRCULAR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Should all instances of 'tbd' in this article be changed to 'TBD'?

Hi, in the article List of aircraft carriers in service, the abbreviation 'tbd' is always used with all lowercase letters, instead of 'TBD' in all caps. They can be seen in the Carriers ordered and Other planned carriers sections. I propose changing them all to 'TBD' as this form is much more commonly used and is widely considered the correct format. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 13:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@JackintheBox: Why are you canvassing me and several other people? I already saw your post at WT:Manual of Style/Abbreviations because that page is on my watchlist. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing was not my intention. I was trying to gain consensus to make that change, with users who are knowledgeable in MOS:Abbreviations and MOS:Capital letters. But looks like it's resolved now, and the change has been made. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 00:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I am sorry I didn't use the proper code. Thanks for your intervention.[1] Cinadon36 (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Geonotice

Hi! I would like a geonotice for an event I'm running - m:Meetup/London/142 - and Deryck Chan suggested that I ask your help to do a geonotice for it for London and the South East. Would that be possible? Thanks. --Jwslubbock (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jwslubbock: It should already be there, I set it up several days ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks! Can I ask you for another geonotice, please? This one is for next week, for a SkillShare at the Wikimedia UK office. The meta page is here - m:Meetup/London_Skillshare/2. I guess it's for anyone from London and the South East. Thanks a lot for your help. --Jwslubbock (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jwslubbock: There's a problem with that: geolocation in the UK is notoriously unreliable, see User:Redrose64#Where am I? At present, I geolocate to 51.49640°N 0.12240°W / 51.49640; -0.12240 which is a point in the middle of the Thames, west of Lambeth Palace. I don't live on a boat. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Underscores

Regarding the question "why do people use underscores when spaces work perfectly well *and* make the page more readable?" you posed in this edit, it's almost certainly because people are copying and pasting the URL. This is often simpler than copying the page title and section name separately, especially for those people who only have a single clipboard. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on the Newport, Abergavenny and Hereford Railway.

Are you aware of any reasons why this particular Wikipedia article cannot be accessed, as when I try to do so, all I see is a listing of tabular computer jargon.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This change broke it.

I've fixed it now, assuming your station ordering change was itself correct.

These routemaps are very fiddly to edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, removing one closing brace causes all sorts of trouble. When you copy rows from one place to another you must make sure that you take the whole row. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Done

Hi, and haven't thanked you lately for your help, so here's a thanks in advance! Question... Cluebot III needs a {{done}} in addition to a |done=yes (at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure)? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  21:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: (talk page stalker) the |done=yes only changes the appearance - the actually archiving is controlled independently by the {{done}} template, or any of the other templates listed in the html comment at [2]. See #ANRFC above for more --DannyS712 (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

To editor DannyS712: cool! and thank you very much! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  07:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

C2A

Please consider a longer block for C2A, they continue to have a competency issue in reverting edits: [3] Cards84664 (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cards84664: I was already on the case when you posted here, I've spent over an hour going through recent events on several pages; during this time I decided that there was sufficient grounds for a further, longer, block, which I set at 20:01 with a 48-hour duration. I did not serve the accompanying notice for over half an hour afterward because I was still reading up on events, and wording an appropriate preliminary to the formal {{subst:uw-ewblock}} notice.

To my TPSs - the relevant block log. Comments are welcome. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cards84664: Why did you request for me to get blocked? This time please do not remove this question. C2A (About | Call | Edits) 05:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Should C2A (talk · contribs) be reblocked? Three minutes after he resumed editing he once again made changes to the very same phrase in London Underground rolling stock numbering and classification, despite promising that Instead of edit warring on the article, I will discuss the issue … when I am unblocked. Useddenim (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It was a totally different change that I made on the article. I was just cleaning the phrase up. You should have read the edit summary, Useddenim. C2A (About | Call | Edits) 14:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@C2A: In view of your recent edits to that article, you should consider all edits to be controversial, requiring prior discussion. WP:BOLD can only be taken so far. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Now why are you making restrictions, saying I now have to discuss any further changes I make on Wikipedia? That is very unfair. C2A (About | Call | Edits) 07:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@C2A: Did you work through the reading list provided by Useddenim (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Tracking down the transclusions

Hello R. I hope you are well. When you have a moment would you please take a look at the three items in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. The Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals and the User:CorbieVreccan/Admin Toolbox are the kind that usually disappear after a transcluded pages protection expires but they have been in the category for over two weeks now and I haven't been able to track down why. The Wikipedia talk:Tutorial just showed up today but I am not sure which of Moxy's edits caused this to be added to the category. Have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 15:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals uses some unusual markup which is very difficult to understand - and that's before I've even got as far as its Lua code. This one must therefore be fixed by the only person who has ever edited the page, which is Pppery (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Done it. It's hacky, but it works. The only one left is User:CorbieVreccan/Admin Toolbox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem edit by Moxy (talk · contribs) was this one, which also broke the section edit links. This points to User:Sunmist/sandbox/Tutorial tabs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 All clear now --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts R! In our years of dealing with the cat these may be the trickiest ones yet. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Tom Holland 'Books' List Edit

I'm sorry, but there were already 17 other books on that list of books before you added the Aethelflaed title to it, all done in the same format, with title first and no author (since it's exclusively a list of books written by Tom Holland on Tom Holland's entry page, it seems very unnecessary to have the name 'Tom Holland' in front of each book). I cannot see what is special about this one book that it needs to be done in a different format from all the other books on the exact same list, causing it to not just stick out, but making it so the reader misses that title entirely when scanning down the list.

It seems prudent that when adding something to an existing list, an editor should use the format that has been used previously by all other editors over the years so that the entire list remains cohesive. Is there some way you could put that book in the same format as the other 17 books on the same list? Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(For my TPSs, this concerns Tom Holland (author)#Non-fiction) @Lilipo25: There are only nine works listed that use {{cite book}}, not 17. Anyway, the {{cite book}} template emits COinS metadata, for which the details of the author are required (somebody like Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) or Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) can probably explain this better than me). The other books in the list should really have author information added too; and all except the first one may also have |authormask= added. See Hamilton Ellis, Roger Kidner or John Marshall for how this would look with |authormask=2 - but |authormask=1 would be perfectly valid. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• See [4] (I'm not doing the rest, I'm not reverting this, do whatever you like with the article).

The metadata in the list works better is the full authoring information is embedded, then we just hide it a little with authormask.

This is also useful if it'a a series of collaborations with varying other authors, editors etc. See David Fletcher. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on the Wealden Line.

I tried to log onto this article but all that was revealed was tabulated computer jargon. Have you any idea what might have caused this to occur?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: I take it you mean Wealden Line - it's always best to link the page that exhibits the problem. Steamybrian2 (talk · contribs) broke it with this edit and then spent the next four edits trying to fix it, but instead making it worse each time. They then gave up; but really they should have reverted back to the version that existed before they started. That's what I have now done. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies- A tried to make a simple change but it did not work.Steamybrian2 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Liverpool Pullman

I see from your contributions to British Rail Classes 251 and 261 that you have some knowlege of the Liverpool Pullman. The Liverpool Pullman article is a mess. Perhaps you could help sort it out. See Talk:Liverpool_Pullman I have also flagged this with the article's creator, who might also have more accurate information. Thanks. 2A00:23C6:3B89:8A00:C9E3:AC95:C60F:358F (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Emily Skinner (actress, born 1970)

Hi Redrose, excuse me for interrupting, but I could see you were online. Could you do me a favor? I had requested Emily Skinner (actress, born 1970) be CSD'd because it was a cut and paste move from Emily Skinner, rather than actually moving the article. Another admin did the CSD, but before I could move the article, another editor recreated the redirect, again blocking the move. I moved the page into draft, thinking I could then move Emily Skinner, but it keeps telling me the article exists. Can you help me clean up my mess? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Emily Skinner (actress, born 1970) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Emily Skinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Emily Skinner (actress, born 1970) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Let's see. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Which one needs moving, to where? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Emily Skinner should be moved to Emily Skinner (actress, born 1970), then the redirect should be turned into a dab for Emily Skinner (actress, born 1970) and Emily Skinner (actress, born 2002). Then the draft should also be deleted. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Apart from deleting the page currently in draft space, I don't see what is preventing you from doing this move. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but when I attempt to make the move, I am prevented from doing so by the same message you get when there is a legitimate page exists. Believe me I tried several times before bothering you. And I just tried again, in case some time needed to pass, and still no dice. I don't get it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK now? I fixed up a bunch of incoming links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Any more dabs created I'll get on tonight or tomorrow's dab report. Thanks again for all your help.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Great Western Main Line

The {{Great Western Main Line diagram}} needs redrawing to include Didcot Railway Centre. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: We could borrow from Template:Railways around Didcot RDT but that might make it overwide. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this RfC correctly formatted?

Talk:William_Barr#RfC:_Expand_lede_beyond_one_short_paragraph ? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Not quite. For a long RfC like that, you need two signatures: one at the end of the opening statement (as you did) plus one at the very bottom in the normal manner, which I have added. The extra one (at the end of the opening statement) is used by Legobot for several purposes, such as how much should be copied to the RfC listing page, which in this case is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for correcting my mess. You are an awesome human being. Usedtobecool (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Meridian Water railway station

Not knowing who best to contact, noting matters in the Wikipedia article on this new station, it looks somewhat confusing and I seek your thoughts on the matter. The station is said to open this week on 28th May 2019, the same day when Angel Road railway station is due to be closed, but in the article itself, under "Services", a date of 9th September 2019 is shown for services commencement.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a RS, but Liverpool Street is festooned with "Warning, Meridian Water opening delayed" signs. ‑ Iridescent 23:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to draw my attention to an article (or other page), it's always best to link it. I assume that you mean Meridian Water railway station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

As you can see, those were the very words that were used to head this query. Do you mean something else?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

What part of the word link is difficult to comprehend? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, that comment has well and truly put me in my place and at the age of 74, perhaps it adds truth to the old adage of "There is no fool like an old fool". Forgive me for wasting your most valuable time.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Chrono Order of XFDs

Okay. Is that by order of the original date of the XFD, without regard to any relistings, and does that mean to put the oldest XFDs at the top, or at the bottom? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

It should be clear by examining the ones that are already there. But for XFDs it's by the original timestamp of the discussion concerned, and that is the timestamp that goes into the {{initiated}} template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm

Hello R. I am stumped by the articles that are currently in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. The common denominator seems to be Chris Martin but I can't find the reason why. Your help will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 16:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It was this edit by Mad Hatter (talk · contribs), which I've reverted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that was an odd thing to redirect :-) Thanks for the fix! MarnetteD|Talk 17:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I will purge this parody of Template article from the face of Wikipedia and nominate for deletion and get it broomly out of the floor, because it fails of being any useful in notification in Music articles, since all that it's related to Chris Martin is virtually all Coldplay and it has 0 articles to mention, Chris Martin has no solo work virtually out of Coldplay "area". I will nominate it for deletion this spun of template, that I don't know how you managed to conjure or create. Am I clear, Redrose64 (talk · contribs)?

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

@Mad Hatter: No, you are not clear. Your English is of a strange dialect, unfamiliar to me. I don't know what you mean by "this parody of Template article" - templates are not articles. The page in question (Template:Chris Martin) is a specific type of template, known as a navbox; a means of navigating between articles, but not an article in itself. By making this edit, that meant that every page that had displayed the Chris Martin navbox at the bottom would instead transclude the whole of the Chris Martin article, something that is highly confusing and simply not something that we would normally do.

You say "I don't know how you managed to conjure or create" - I did neither, the navbox was created by Daani94 (talk · contribs) and developed by other people including Another Believer (talk · contribs), Eqwdasf (talk · contribs), Bonjovipearl (talk · contribs), Woodensuperman (talk · contribs) and Landingdude13 (talk · contribs). I'm just the guy who traced and fixed the error that was found by MarnetteD.

I gather that you do not like the navbox. If you wish to delete this, the options are either (i) the G or T criteria of WP:CSD; or (ii) WP:TFD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Another one

Hello again. There is a redirect page that showed up in the cat today. As it is fully protected I can't get at it so, when you have a moment, if you could perform the needed change that would be great. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. MarnetteD|Talk 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC problem?

Thanks for your effort with this edit. Do you know if it is working now? Is there a way for me to check? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Yes; in the box at the top of the section there are two links: Politics, government, and law and Biographies. Follow either one, and find the heading for Talk:Fabiana Rosales; as things presently stand, it's followed by the RfC statement and a timestamp, which is normal for RfCs. Now go to this older version of the same RfC listing and search for Rosales - the heading is at the bottom, with no statement and no timestamp - this indicates an error. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits on Ashford International railway station

Sorry if I have mucked up again on Ashford International railway station (and in putting this on your user page). When I saw it it showed up as disambiguation links to South Eastern Railway, which I dabbed to South Eastern Railway (UK) and Appledore railway station which I dabbed to Appledore railway station (Kent) - as previously discussed the dispenser tool which I use for thousdands of dabs doesn't seem to identify the template:rws so in the view provided doesn't show that this already exists. Checking in a sandbox {{rws|Appledore}} still shows as a link to Appledore railway station (Kent) and Appledore railway station (Devon).— Rod ^talk 20:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, but I didn't do that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

So I think you are saying I should have made it into {{rws|Appledore|Kent}}. I will try to remember this in future (or maybe I will just avoid dabs which are station links).— Rod ^talk 20:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the {{rws}} template takes more than one parameter: {{rws|Appledore|Kent}} → Appledore. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of link language wrapper templates (June 2019)

A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (Retro is my main account.)

Geonotices

I see that London and Manchester 9 June are still running. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy:  Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on whether "Enterprise client-server backup" should be split from "Backup" into a stand-alone article, and if so how to protect it from "simplifying" re-merger

Sorry if my deleting and re-adding the {{rfc}} template caused problems; I was trying to get Legobot to show a summary for my RfC on the appropriate listing page. I had been working on that section of the Talk page for 5 out of the preceding 7 hours, and I'd forgotten to start it with a brief comment followed by a signature—so I realized I'd exceeded the limit of what Legobot could list.

I would greatly appreciate any suggestions you could make on how to get the "other editor" Pi314m to not make a "simplifying" re-merger. The fourth and fifth paragraphs of that Talk page section explain the problem with his un-discussed "cut-and-paste mergers". IMHO every January Pi314m gets an urge to exhibit his intellectual prowess in the wider WP arena, so he "simplifies" a set of related articles by merging them into one article. Unlike in 2017 and 2018, in January 2019 he didn't get denounced for un-discussed article deletion by another editor, so he decided to do it again in late May 2019.

Pi314m's contributions list shows he doesn't have any knowledge of enterprise IT beyond the mid-1990s, and this time he got in over his head. I've tried educating him with extensive comments on his personal Talk page, but he hasn't responded there. I'd guess Pi314m suffers from a combination of feeling useless in retirement and of feeling that a "real man" doesn't respond to criticism. I've reluctantly concluded the only solution to this problem is to get him banned from editing Wikipedia, or at least banned from editing certain articles. I will now proceed along that path via the Administrative route. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: Legobot runs once an hour, it looks at open RfCs and updates the listing pages where necessary - if you alter your RfC, don't be surprised if the listings aren't updated immmediately. Pi314m I care little about: I advised you that various avenues are available to you concerning user conduct, and none of them involve bringing your dispute here, so please don't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Template : Oxted Line

I have just printed out a 2-page A4 size hard copy of this Wikipedia template to pass on to a very elderly friend who no longer has computer access, but the resultant print-out is absolutely full of blank white spaced sections between each line entry, which makes this print-out useless for an old person with fading eyesight to follow.

Have you any ideas as to why this problem has occurred? At the foot of the template, it states that "This page was last updated on 31 October 2018 at 10.43"

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No link - no action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Once again,I thank you for your assistance in this matter and I will convey what you have said above, when I visit my very elderly friend with the aforemention 2-page A4 size hard copy print-out.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have since put the same query to Useddenim and he said it was because it was still on the old computer format and the said template has now been updated by the use of Routemap. I have again printed out the 2-page A4 printout, which is perfect in all respects. I have posted this printout to my very elderly friend.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Close to home

Hello R. Just wanted to let you know that your sandboxes redirects just showed up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Thanks again for the series recommendation. MarnetteD|Talk 18:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's because they use {{this is a redirect/sandbox}} which is a redir to Template:Redirect category shell/sandbox, and Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs) has been doing some testing in there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining things R. MarnetteD|Talk 21:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

To editor MarnetteD: the sandbox has been normalized for now. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  01:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Paine Ellsworth. Good to know both now and if you are working on things like this in the future. MarnetteD|Talk 02:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  09:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

IMHO a particular list should be formatted as columns. I don't understand how to do that.

Hi. I'd like to make columns and don't understand the instructions for how to do so.

Golden_Age_of_Television_(2000s–present)#List_of_selected_important_and_notable_shows contains a long and unwieldy list of "important and notable" television shows.

IMHO this would be better formatted as two or more columns.

Thanks. - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at how I did it at Wikipedia:Meetup/UK#Oxford. BTW this is really a WP:HD question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

London and South Western Railway

Hi. Don't know what happened there, that template came up as a dab yesterday, which is why I took that action. I just checked it again in Dabsolver, and it doesn't show an issue now. Very weird. I thought perhaps that the underlying template might have been changed, but that's not the case, your edit in February was the last time someone changed the template, well Template:Stnlnk, which is where this redirects to.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem was that the second parameter, i.e. |London, had been omitted. All that you needed to do was add in that parameter, there was no need to covert it to a full link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't do much work with templates (other than the simple ones I create for film directors and politicians).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Challacombe scale

hi @Redrose64:...Is it possible to add colour to the table on this page...preferably going light to dark as severity gets worse. Happy for @Philafrenzy: to intervene. thank you Whispyhistory (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Colour can be added, but we need to observe MOS:COLOUR carefully. You might be considering coloured backgrounds - I find this a detraction (see British Rail Class 58#Names and numbers for example). Instead, consider vertical bands of colour, which are not used as a background, like those at Clapham Junction railway station#Services. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is needed as the text explains very well, also light to dark with dark worst might be problematic. What would do the job best is a "0" described as normal. Does 0 appear in the scale? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

[5]..has three shades. Does that help? Whispyhistory (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

These colours are: 1-3   or #eae1f0; 4-6   or #d0bedd; 7-10   or #bc9dca. If used as the background for black text, all of these are WCAG 2 AAA Compliant and so would satisfy the contrast/readability portions of MOS:COLOUR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much as always ...I have been trying to practice but I don't understand where to put those codes. Do you know of an article where this is done? Thank you too @Philafrenzy:...no "0" in scale...you might think a good hook here. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a 0 if 1 is expressed as a degree of abnormality? Perhaps there could be a line at the top with no number but just saying normal? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

For humour: DYK that the Challacombe scale measures CODS?

Or a serious one DYK that the Challacombe scale measures the dryness of the human mouth? With the picture. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: There are ten binary (yes/no) tests; you score 1 for each "yes", and 0 for each "no". When you have answered all ten, add up your scores. If you answered "no" to all ten, then your total score will be zero, and presumably you don't have the condition. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

So is the presentation misleading? You could have for instance cervical caries on more than two teeth but not otherwise have a problem yet the table seems to suggest that is characteristic of severe dryness when each test in fact has an equal weight. Perhaps it should be split into a section for the things to be tested and below for the score. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that the PDF supplied by Whispyhistory (talk · contribs) is misleading in that it segregates ten symptoms into three groups with the implication that if your patient has, say, no saliva pooling in floor of mouth, their score is going to be at least 4 - even if they exhibit none of the other symptoms. But the wording elsewhere uses the term "additive" four times, and there is also the significant sentence "Each feature scores 1 and symptoms will not necessarily progress in the order shown, but summated scores indicate likely patient needs." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both..I will reread tomorrow and maybe ask some experts before sending a reply. I rephrased the interpretations, which appear accurate...watch this space. I like the first hook...keep both. Whispyhistory (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory: Check it now. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks good at quick glance...will check later in detail...tied up for now. Will get back tomorrow. Thanks @Philafrenzy:. Whispyhistory (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think its good Whispyhistory (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64 and P...I have DYK'ed it. Please alter if necessary. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Miranda Borman hoaxer

I think you might find (Redacted) enlightening. Best regards! Option 16 (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice on the inadvertently left blank line. That was certainly accidental and during this time I have been having issues with edit conflicts that are annoying at best and totally aggravating at worst. Wait! It seems I included you in the list of those I pinged so you already know. I don't know if it matters in presentation but I moved the listing over to be in line with others. I would have most certainly just corrected it if you had just gave me the ping but sincere thanks for you correcting it. Otr500 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The presence or absence of this space doesn't matter, but a blank line is proven to cause problems - we spent six months working that one out. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

WOW! I figured it was important and bot related so thanks again. Otr500 (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday JP

Hello R. Today is the 100th anniversary of Jon Pertwee's birth! Here is a nice interview with Sean. Being the child of any of the actors playing the Dr would be amazing. With Jon's love of gadgets Sean's youth must have been a real treat. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Rename Village Pump

I was too late to register my view which would have been strong oppose but I gotta admit the redirect would have been almost worth it (WP:HOW) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Disputes for over a year

This is happening on multiple articles. For example, the disputes on another article are not resolved for over a year. See talk page. I tried fixing things before on this topic area and I was told to revert. The RfCs will help resolve the disputes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Why do you need eight ongoing RfCs for one article? Have you been observing WP:RFCBEFORE? You are swamping the RfC system (see WP:RFC/ECON), and I expect that a lot of people are already thinking "oh no, not another RfC for electric smoking system - I shall ignore that, just like the rest". Have you considered holding off starting a fresh RfC until the outstanding ones are concluded? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am waiting for most of these to be completed to start one or two at the Nicotine marketing talk page. You can read the sources. There are obvious problems with this. I could fix it but I don't want to be told to revert. You have a better idea to remove problematic content? WP:DR is for regular content disputes. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If a page is prone to back-and-forth editing which doesn't quite make it to WP:EW, ask for protection. Then, don't jump straight for RfC - hold a calm discussion on its talk page. When you get it down to a small number of potential outcomes, then try for RfC. But holding lots of RfCs at the same time is simply going to make people turn off. As I mentioned before, there are eight ongoing - and in the last six months, there have been a further fourteen that were started (mostly by yourself) and are no longer running. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not reverting anymore. That won't work. Wikipedia does not have a noticeboard for failed verification content for admins to enforce V policy. This is not minor inaccurate content. This is obvious failed verification content. If I start a RfC it would be replaced with better content. I have lots of diffs like this. If this went to one of the drama boards things would resolve much quicker and there may not be any need for anymore RfCs. That's because an admin may show them the door. These articles are under DS. Editors being on there best behavior is not an option. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Nicotine marketing § Archiving

 – --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Geonotice for Wikimedia UK AGM

Hi, do you think you could do a Geonotice for our AGM this coming saturday? Please see the page on Meta here. Thanks! --88.98.199.221 (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Very short notice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know how many people actually show. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Amendment to article, without giving a citation.

Moved to User talk:92.18.11.32 § Amendment to article, without giving a citation.

 – Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit to Hinckley railway station

Hi, can you tell me why you've removed my edits to the Hinckley Railway Station page?

It is quite common for station pages to include information about adoption groups and the links I added are relevant to the station and the Friends of Hinckley Station group which has adopted it.

Regards

Mike George OurMikeGeorge (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, can you tell me what was wrong with my edit on this page please? You have removed it as link spam, but it is quite common for railway station pages to refer to adoption groups, and the two links I added are relevant to the station and the Friends of Hinckley Station group.

Regards

Mike George OurMikeGeorge (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry this is a duplicated topic, I didn't see the first one appear. OurMikeGeorge (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO, WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:SPAM. Also WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I can see how the links I added can be regarded as spam, although that was not my intention, but the paragraph about the station adoption group is an objective statement of fact which adds relevant information to the entry. Could this be reinstated please? OurMikeGeorge (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please find some independent sources, per WP:IS and WP:NPOV. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Would these be suitable?

https://www.hinckleytimes.net/news/local-news/commuting-more-colourful-hinckley-station-14633418

https://moderngov.hinckley-bosworth.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MeetingId=1869 OurMikeGeorge (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

These are better. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your friendly help with fixing RFC, it was very nice!--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry about my brainfart. Thanks for linking the thread not the diff NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I should probably have mentioned WP:TPO#Fixing links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Talk:Immigration and crime in Germany

I don't normally do these, and I don't really understand what I did wrong here, unless it was because I didn't include the statement and the template in the same edit. I hope it's correct now. Deb (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: They don't need to be done in the same edit, provided that both are in place before Legobot (talk · contribs) next visits the page (one minute past each hour). The critical ordering is not chronology of the edits - it's their relative physical positions, as described at WP:RFCST. Legobot looks for the the {{rfc}} tag, and then looks for the next valid timestamp after that point. Everything in between is taken as the RfC statement, and is copied to the RfC listing - this is the effect of your first attempt (aside from the section heading, it's clearly wrong because asking for a police report is not an RfC matter), this is the effect of your second. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.Deb (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Bletchley- Bicester and Aylesbury railway lines

You have reverted my amendments in regard to restoring passenger services along this line through Marsh Gibbon, Claydon, Launton, Waddesdon and others. Please note the railway line through these stations is planned to reopen around 2025 with the passenger service not serving these stations. I agree that the only station between Bletchley and Bicester planned to reopen is Winslow. Please reconsider my alterations. Steamybrian2 (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The reference that you provided does not mention any of these stations. Moreover, it is merely the front page of a website, something that is prone to frequent change. If you wish to use something from that website as a reference, please locate one of its subpages which explicitly supports the content that you are adding, and which is unlikely to change. Consider this edit: you are altering the year to 2023, but are citing https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/ which not only does not mention 2023 at all, it is the front page; yet just seven words later we have the ref http://eastwestrail.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/EWR-prospectus-web-2.pdf which is a far more detailed source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Welsh place names

I am wondering if you would be interested in contributing to a move discussion in the River Dovey article (Talk:River Dovey#Requested move 28 July 2019). There appears to be some confusion over whether to use the prefix 'Afon' or 'River' in articles about rivers in Wales although the mainstream media tends to use 'River' suggesting it is more familiar to English-speakers. As you pointed out in Talk:Penhelig railway station this is the English Wikipedia but I am up against User:Railfan23 who, in a previous discussion on Talk:Afon Twymyn, claimed that the discussion was about the Welsh language not some dialect of English, who dismissed Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English as a red herring and is adamant that Aberdyfi is the sole official name for the village of that name despite the continued use of the anglicised Aberdovey by the railways and Ordnance Survey, who due to my recent scuffles with I do not feel entirely confident in dealing with on my own. Tk420 (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. I'm afraid that TK420 badly misrepresents my contributions to previous discussions. Despite a request, TK420 has not withdrawn the offending comments. So let me state:

Tk420 is not "up against User:Railfan23". I have started a discussion, and TK420's battlefield mentality is problematic. I never "claimed that the discussion was about the Welsh language not some dialect of English". I have not in any way "dismissed Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English as a red herring". And saying I am "adamant that Aberdyfi is the sole official name for the village of that name" is a straightforward lie.

I am sure that you will see beyond this blatant attempt to bias the discussion, and very much welcome your thoughts at Talk:River Dovey, if you are interested in joining in. Best, Railfan23 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What class

Two car DMU, comprising E56065 and E50213, in use in Darlington area in 1977, but what class is it? Mjroots (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Class 101 - built 1957 on Lot nos. 30262 and 30261 respectively, by Metropolitan Cammell (with B.U.T.(AEC) engines) to Diagrams 630 and 523 respectively. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

50213 was withdrawn March 1977 (I don't think it's a coincidence) and cut up January 1982. 56065 remained in service, was renumbered 54065 circa 1984/85, and eventually withdrawn December 1992. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Challacombe scale has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Redrose64. Challacombe scale, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 10:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Today's exercise for the reader: find my contribution (significant or otherwise) to the above article, or its DYK nom. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Whispyhistory named you as the co-author on the original DYK nomination, which is presumably where the bot picked your name up—I assume she cut-and-pasted the formatting from a DYK at some point on which the pair of you did collaborate, and forgot to remove the name. ‑ Iridescent 16:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that I'm named there - it's why I posted this. I do actually know why I'm named, but others may be puzzled, hence why I said "exercise for the reader". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Duly exercised  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me that's not your tongue… ‑ Iridescent 17:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

With the amount of real ale that RedRose drinks, I would be very surprised if it was. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for lessons in colouring in Redrose64. The scale would not look the same without your help. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Now we're closer! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The answer to my poser of 16:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC) is: see #Challacombe scale above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I observe a COD score of 3, in the pale pink section. Thankyou for adding colour to life. Please hydrate yourself. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Waterloo–Reading Line‎

Ignoring {{UK road}} for the time being, should all the level crossings just be stripped out, or are they significant? Useddenim (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Some of them - such as the one at Wokingham - are given sourced writeups in articles, those can probably stay. Others with no mention anywhere else - such as the ones between Barnes and Mortlake - should go. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The large number, though, is notable as an obstacle to increasing train frequency on this line. Bazza (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So, my takeaway is that for this diagram the LCs should stay, but there should be mention in the article as Bazza 7 alluded to. Useddenim (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Typo

Are you sure that you meant _City of Truro_ here? :-) Pinkbeast (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you You're right, of course, I just copied a previous reply from Talk:GWR 3700 Class 3440 City of Truro. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Black 5 & LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0

I note your reverts of my edits to various railway line articles which were pointing at Black 5 which now points to LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 but didn't when I made the edits - so perhaps the edit summary of WP:NOTBROKEN was inappropriate?— Rod ^talk 13:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rodw: The article LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 was moved to LMS Stanier Class 5 by Railfan23 (talk · contribs) at 05:03, 13 August 2019 without discussion; and at 05:16, 13 August 2019 Tony May (talk · contribs) moved it back. Unfortunately, in the intervening thirteen minutes a number of redirects were "fixed" by bots as double redirects. If Tony May had left things alone after their move back, the bots would have come by and undone themselves, and all would have been well. Unfortunately, Tony May's next action (at 05:20, 13 August 2019) was to convert the redirect LMS Stanier Class 5 to a dab page, thus the bots didn't see any double redirects, and left the redirects alone. The correct action by Tony May after reverting the improper page move would have been to undo the bot edits before converting the redirect to a dab page. Indeed, after they performed the move they would have been shown this message, where the last two bullets are particularly relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

East Coast Main Line diagram

This line template needs to be looked at urgently as it is in urgent need of tidying up with many of the lines branching off not being correctly entered in terms of line breaks

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't provide any links; presumably you mean East Coast Main Line diagram. If this is indeed the case, I fail to understand why you asking me - I didn't create the page, and have few significant edits. If there is a problem with a page, the first place to post is its talk page, i.e. Talk:East Coast Main Line diagram. If there is no response there, drop a pointer note at WT:UKRAIL in accordance with WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You say I have not provided any links, yet the wording at the head of this request East Coast Main Line diagram (note that I have now used the pair of double square brackets around the title name that you did above) is self explanatory as that is exactly what the line diagram on Wikipedia is headed. I did put this request to you as you are regarded by many as a person who is very well regarded by many on Wikipedia. It is just not this particular item that has been affected, as the Template : Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway is also affected together with a number of those covering English railways. All these appear to have been correct in layout prior to 2019 and I wonder if any new Wikipedia procedure has occurred to cause "jumbled" line diagrams? Please bear with me, as not only am I 74 years of age, but I still suffer from post-stroke relapses and my clarity of thought is no longer that of a young and active 25 year old person with far better computer understanding than I possess.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said above (and as advised at Help:Talk pages), the place to discuss improvements to an article is at the talk page of the article, not of a user who is only one of several to have amended that article. I notice that you did not make any edits to the article talk page until today. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I really was most grateful for your guidance and not only have I have I have now made an entry on the relevant talk page, but also have made a similar entry on the talk page of the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway, as that line diagram has exactly the same problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenophon Philosopher (talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Portway Parkway railway station

The Wikipedia article on this proposed station carries the name of Portway Parkway railway station, but current industry sources always now refer to it as Portway Park and Ride railway station with a provisional opening in 2021.

Could the title of the article and all referred-to names within the article be changed to read PORTWAY PARK AND RIDE RAILWAY STATION?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't use all-capitals. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I must have hit the "caps" button in error, so I will re-phrase. Can the name of the article be changed to read Portway Park and Ride railway station.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Network Rail call it either "Portway Station" or "Portway Parkway", and they're ultimately going to be the ones to name the thing. The reason you see so many mentions of "Portway Park & Ride" is that the station is being built on the site of the existing P&R car park of that name, but I'd think the likelihood of that actually being its name when it opens is zero—it would go totally against every UK transport naming convention. I strongly suspect that the "Parkway" will be quietly dropped when it eventually opens because there's no other "Portway station" against which it's necessary to disambiguate. ‑ Iridescent 06:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There's no other Didcot either, but that doesn't stop them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Didcot is an anomaly as it deviates from the usual convention of "parkway" and "road" as code for "miles away from the place the station is named for but with a direct service to there". When it was renamed it should probably have been "Oxford Parkway" but the locals would have screamed blue murder. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

At that time there were proposals for a station on the Oxford Ring Road, which could have picked up a "Parkway" tag: one suggested location being near Redbridge Park & Ride, approximately on the site of the former Abingdon Road Halt railway station. Of course, thirty years later we got Oxford Parkway railway station almost diametrically opposite. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

When you have a moment

Hello R. Three items have crept into our old friend Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I left the module and Tyrol workshop items for more than a week in the hopes that whatever transcluded page protection was affecting them might simply expire but no such luck. The perle.pl page had one protection template removed by a bot. I went through it looking for another one but came up empty. As ever thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 17:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There you go. The perle.pl one was actually on the next line down, but it is supposed to be there - as is the one that the bot removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful. Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 18:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Blank lines and accessibility

No objections to your change, but could you explain or point me to something that clarifies the connection between blank lines and accessibility? (text to speech issues?)Finney1234 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) See MOS:INDENTGAP. Basically, you can't have a blank line unless you're genuinely starting a new section; if you really want to leave a blank line in the edit window for ease of editing, do it as I've done with this edit and indent the gap to the same level as the following text. ‑ Iridescent 18:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Finney1234: I already did, it's the second link in the edit summary of my edit. Third if you count the section name (in grey) as the first link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you help my fading memory?

Hello R. We have an editor who is capitalising T's in Dr Who articles. I thought there was a discussion in the (distant) past about this and that it was determined not to do that. If there was one I wouldn't know where to find it. I also couldn't find any mention of it in the Dr Who MOS. Do you remember anything about this? If so we should probably make this editor aware of this. If not no worries. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably best to send this one to WT:WHO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I might have been thinking of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) R. On a completely different note can you discover why this redirect has wound up in the incorrect protection templates category. Neither it nor {{SfnRef}} have been edited recently. Both are fully protected so I can't check on any transclusions. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 16:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The redir is template-protected, but the template in use was that for semi-prot. Fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for yet another fix. MarnetteD|Talk 17:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

LDR on Aspinall

When I was editing it there was a factual mistake about him becoming locomotive superintendent of the L&YR in 1883 which could not be correct so I needed to grab a book and do a fairly complex edit. I did not want the refs in the middle of the text while I was doing it or else I would likely have gone blind. I had some intention to move them back afterwards but I didn't want to lose what I had dome. Ideally would have under constructioned it. Thankyou for spotting the s-end .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Dashboards

Good day R. Over 100 user dashboards are now in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I have been unable to track down what might need a "noinclude" - of course it might be something else causing this so if you could work your magic to discover what the problem is that would be most appreciated. If they just need a null edit let me know and I will help with that. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Both of these: {{Admin dashboard/aiv}} {{Admin dashboard/uaarfpp}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, they were due to this edit and this one, both by Wyatt2049 (talk · contribs) who has been slapping pp templates on pages that have managed perfectly well without them for years, and in so doing has completely ignored the comments that either say not to, or that they must be inside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> part. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking these down. MarnetteD|Talk 23:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. So I have been going around looking for untagged protected pages. When I did find them, I would not go into source edit. Rather, I would use Twinkle to apply the tag at the top. So when I did that, the Warning was not there. I apologize for what I may have caused, and I hope that I can do better looking at the tags in the future. With regards...Wyatt2049 | (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

And P.S., will I recive a block?--Wyatt2049 | (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

While your enthusiasm is understandable Wyatt2049 the placing of protection templates is a tricky thing and it would be better to leave it to admins - at least for the time being. A block would only be necessary if this were an ongoing problem but I think your post here shows that you are receptive to advice from other editors. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MarnetteD! I am taking your advice. I just wanted to help out, and I do hope to become an Administrator one day, and I just wanted a feel for what it may be like whilst helping Wikipedia!--Wyatt2049 | (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Liverpool Street station; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Rebroad (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rebroad: You've got a nerve to template me in that manner. To my WP:TPSs: look at the history of the page concerned; how many edits have I made in the last couple of weeks, and how many has Rebroad made in the same period? Seriously, Rebroad: if you want punitive action to be taken on this matter, send it to WP:ANI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Great Eastern article

Dear Redrose64, I am brand new to Wikipedia communications, so beg your patience please. I'm an American author (Redacted) researching a book that will be partly about Isambard Kingdom Brunel and the Great Eastern. In reading the Wikipedia article, I was struck especially by the specificity of some of the descriptions ("the ship was finally launched sideways at 1:42pm on 31 January 1858, aided by an unusually high tide and strong winds"). I'm anxious to contact the person responsible for that kind of reporting to hopefully learn more about the sources, both primary and secondary. Thank you so much for any help you might offer. I confess to being somewhat overwhelmed by the complexity of the Wiki system!

My email is (Redacted)

Jim Tabor (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmtabor (talk • contribs) 20:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jamesmtabor: We don't post personal contact information about anybody on Wikipedia. If you wish to know the Wikipedia login name of the person who added that content, it's in the article history. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Banisters

Not complaining, just want to let you know that, according to the OED, banisters and bannisters are both correct. Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps; but mainline is definitely wrong. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

True crime may not be your forte

But can you do me an assistance and give Murder of Rachael Runyan a proof-read/grammar check, please? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: I'm not one for copyediting, you should really file a request at WP:GOCE/REQ. The only true crime that I've written about is the last paragraph here, dealing with the murder of Vikki Thompson. Other people have since copyedited what I wrote there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

ANRFC

You might have more luck communicating on the user's talk page rather than the edit summary. I see it because I watch the page but the user you're attempting to help improve might not (apologies if you've already left them a note and I missed it when I did a quick scan of that user's talk page). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I did it as an undo, which sends them a notification. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Class mask

Just spotted this edit from 2016: [6] Is that necessary (or still necessary)? A banner appears to work just fine without specifying the lower case parameter for SIA. PC78 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It was necessary at the time, but this edit made it one of the predefined options. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That's just a category check, why would that make a difference? AFAICT that template won't check for categories of custom classes. PC78 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for two line template information details to be copied over from the main article body and new separate line templates shown on the master Wikipedia section where these are shown

The two lines that I have in mind for consideration are:-

Newtown and Machynlleth Railway........Suggested to be shown in the Category : Templates for railway lines of the United Kingdom Templates for railway lines of Wales section.

Exe Valley Railway.....................Suggested to be shown in the Category : Templates for railway lines of the United Kingdom Templates for railway lines of England section.

I welcome your views on such a request.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

First, I don't know what either 'the Wikipedia "Wales line templates" section' or 'the Wikipedia "England line templates" section' might refer to. Second, this is not a question for my talk page (or that of any other user), it should really be on the talk page of the article concerned; or if it is a general question relating to several articles, a better place would be WT:UKRAIL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

In answer to your query, I am somewhat surprised to hear that as one of the most knowledgeable of railway editors that you seem unaware of the Wikipedia section that is headed Category : Templates for railway lines of the United Kingdom in which are contained the two sections that I made reference to. Howsoever, at the age of 74, I will make entries upon the talk pages referred to by you. My most earnest hope now is that one day I will ask guidance from you and will be given a straight and unambiguous answer without the usually now expected admonishment.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Templates for railway lines of the United Kingdom isn't a section, it is a category.

I can only give a straight and unambiguous answer if you give a straight and unambiguous question. Many times you have posted here, and failed to supply a link to the relevant page - but when you do provide a link, more often than not it is a red link - that is, a link to a page that simply does not exist. This does not help me one bit. Despite this edit, there are still two red links in your post above.

Wikipedia provides a number of help services; you will find that this page is not among them. I simply do not have the time or the patience to handle questions from somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for over six years yet still cannot carry out a simple task like making a link that works. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Your points above are noted, but you know from what I have said in past years that the stroke that I suffered at the age of 67 in July 2012 left me at times to really struggle with what seems straightforward computer tasks like the one you mention at the end of your last response, which then causes me to seek advice from a highly respected Wikipedia personage such as your good self. I think the wording used in your final comments above is very hurtful and betrays a lack of empathy.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You were given a heap of help information soon after you started, and it's still on your user talk page, at User talk:Xenophon Philosopher#Welcome!. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

WMSR TE application

Hey Redrose64, I wanted to ask for any comments you might have at this application for the template editor permission submitted by WMSR as it seems you have worked on similar templates. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@L235: I saw this in my notifications a few days ago. I'm still unsure of what to put. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about creating an article

I am trying to creat a page for my sister she is anprofessio al wrestler and i am her manager. It is our family business am i on the wrong wikipedia here?

Hi I am my sisters manager and do her PR it is our family business am i on the wrong wikipedia here? Lexygbh82 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lexygbh82: You have already been advised by PohranicniStraze (talk · contribs) that Wikipedia talk:Project namespace is the wrong place for such questions. This page is also the wrong place and I see nothing in PohranicniStraze's reply that suggested that you should ask here. In the left-hand margin, under "Interaction", there is a link named "Help". Have you tried that?

To paraphrase what PohranicniStraze said: we have a dedicated place to request new articles, and you really should not attempt to make a page for a close family member yourself; please see the conflict of interest guidelines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Your issue with me

Hello RedRose64, I've noticed you've been consistently reverting edits I have made on pages with material or sources I've quoted. Now while I've seen this as fine. I'm not very happy with your remarks made in January making me out to have in your words. A crystal ball user. I'm offended by this and your recent edit with your. Personal wishes.

You have had it out for me non stop and Nnthep as well. I'm getting really annoyed by you two only targeting my edits but no one elses or even better. You edit places which you let do not clearly live in. You make out I have fake sources.

I use sources from councils and established sources but they are wrong and not your opinions. Do you live near the South Staffordshire Line? Have you ever rode on it? Those two I have done both and know people who can get me correct information.

Aside from this I'd like to know why you keep seeming to target me only and not other users. You have it out for me and I'd rather you admit. Playing it down you haven't is a obvious lie. I'd rather hash it out now on your talk page then on an admin dashboard of bullying or harassment.

Signed, JoshuaistheFalco, 27 September 2019, 1.58am. JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I have explained this before, more than once: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Phrases like "it is hoped" are what we call weasel words, and can indicate that the author of the passage feels that what is actually happening is not what they feel to be the most desirable course of action. Wikipedia works on certain core policies, the most important of which are no original research, neutral point of view, and, most importantly, verifiability. You cannot write about future events as if they were a certainty when all that has happened so far is that a local council has commissioned a feasibility or benefit study. Councils do this all the time, then they realise that what they have left after blowing their budgets on such studies would be better utilised on repairing the things that they haven't been throwing money away on. Until money has been allocated to actually start construction, it's not going to happen. A transport plan is a long way from the reality of running a train.

There is no requirement to live in (or even near) a place in order to write about it. Looking at your edits for the last seven days, I see that you have edited the articles for Aldridge, Brownhills, Burntwood, Lichfield, Shelfield, Smethwick and Walsall Wood. Now unless you move house extremely frequently, I can't believe that you live in all of these places; and so by your own argument (You edit places which you let do not clearly live in.) you are not qualified to write about more than one (or perhaps two) of them. There is a requirement to be able to back up your claims with reliable third-party sources. Where is it stated, for example, that by the end of the 19th century Brownhills had grown to a town with a population of over 12,000 instead of, as was previously shown, over 13,000? The latter figure was added more than twelve years ago by ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs) and was sourced at the time: it went unchallenged until you arbitrarily altered it to 12,000. Why should I not simply revert your edit as unsourced?

You state I'd like to know why you keep seeming to target me only and not other users. You have it out for me and I'd rather you admit. Playing it down you haven't is a obvious lie. Do you have evidence for these claims?

Also, remarks like this really do not help your case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay whatever your always right and I'm wrong. Your opinion and claims matter and no one elses. Fine got it. Sorry I bothered you. 🤷‍♂️ JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ambassadors of death - Latest Episode with no living actors

Moved to User talk:2A02:C7F:489F:4B00:B85B:6454:FFCC:9F5A § September 2019

 – --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A "forthcoming" meetup

Just noticed this wording. Shouldn't it be "upcoming"? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably. That's how it was when I first did one of these, but then Dweller (talk · contribs) decided that it should use British English. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Forthcoming has a double meaning while upcoming doesn't. Can we change it? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

If the event is in the USA use American English --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Following the included links shows that all the events concerned are in the UK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Then tally-ho and splendiferousness, it's BrEng all the way. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Conversions for railway gradients

Hi, do you know if we a) need to generally convert gradients in railways such as "1 in 100" to percentages to make it more understandable to everybody and b) if so, is there a conversion template? I've just plugged a bunch of gradient stats onto Marshlink line (was idly thinking about taking it to FAC at some point, eventually) and was wondering what to do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I did this somewhere once, and at the time somebody observed that railway gradients are not given as percentages because they're so often less than 1%; a per mille figure - symbol ‰ - has a chance of being more than 1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

At Great Central Main Line I find

1 in 176 ({{#expr:(1000/176) round 1}} [[per mil|‰]])

One that I did myself, without using any calculation code, is here, which got amended. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(Ritchie333) For your delectation {{Railway gradient}} e.g. {{Railway gradient|176}} => 1 in 176 (5.7 ‰). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC).

Cool, cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Book categories

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § Clarification: scope of G4

 – --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

New one

Hello R. I'm not sure why Fascism has wound up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. As I went through the articles extensive log I couldn't decipher what had triggered its addition to the cat. As always your help will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 16:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not there now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks for checking. MarnetteD|Talk 21:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Again R. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2019 CUOS appointments is now in the cat. It looks like this is being caused by a transclusion or two on pages that are fully protected so I can't get at them to add a noinclude. Cheerts. MarnetteD|Talk 22:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was both of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2019 CUOS appointments/CU and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2019 CUOS appointments/OS where KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs) wasn't careful how {{pp-protected}} was being used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 00:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy anniversary R! There are two categories in the cat Category:Germany–Monaco relations and Category:Germany–Guatemala relations. They have not been edited since November 2018 and I'm not sure which of the page transclusions are causing this. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Update - They have both disappeared so no need to delve into this. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Redrose64 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! PATH SLOPU 13:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

just a note

thank you for this, it helped more than you would know. I'd never done much stub tagging before, so it was a bit overwhelming at first. I do appreciate your time, TY. — Ched (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Odd behaviour

Hi Redrose64,

I've just come across some weird but harmless behaviour by two Wikipedia editors. I thought I'd report it just in case you think there might be some reason to be suspicious.

Lookher (talk · contribs) and Seeittoo (talk · contribs) (deliberately not pinging) are two new accounts, each with 0 edits. Each has just thanked me for this uncontroversial edit I made in 2015. Very likely one user with two accounts, and very likely totally harmless. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

They have just done the same for me, for the immediately following edit --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Maproom and ColinFine: Their thanks logs are here: Lookher, Seeittoo. Having two accounts is not a crime, provided that certain conventions are observed. See for example Redrose64a (talk · contribs) or Awkward42 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

2011

Hi again R. There are six pages from 2011 in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I tried null edits on them but they are still there. I've noticed recently that when a protection is changed on a page that has an existing pp template that it gets thrown into the cat. I don't remember that happening even last year. I don't know if something has changed or if the problem can even be tracked down but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: For pages like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2011, Xaosflux (talk · contribs) lifted the move prot but didn't remove the {{pp-move-indef}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Good deal R. I'm glad it was something easy to fix. MarnetteD|Talk 17:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary

I know it's my wilful misinterpretation, but "the letter O was discontinued before these units were introduced" is an excellent edit summary! -mattbuck (Talk) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)