User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 17

Jacobo Árbenz

Hello, Redrose64 -- I just finished copy-editing Jacobo Árbenz. I went to the talk page Talk:Jacobo Árbenz and added the GOCE template. The banner shell was already there. However, I couldn't figure out how to hide the WikiProject banners, as I usually do when the list of projects starts to get long.  – Corinne (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: After your edit, there are now five banners. At one time, the advice in the documentation for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} was that "WikiProjectBannerShell is normally used when more than two and fewer than six banners are present on the talk page, and WikiProjectBanners when six or more are present"; the main difference between {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} was that the former collapsed the banners but did not hide them (it left their names and ratings visible) whereas the latter hid the banners completely. This advice seems to have been removed from the documentation, probably when the functions of the two templates were combined, producing {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Although they were merged some months ago (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 27#Template:WikiProjectBanners), the combined template doesn't detect the quantity of banners automatically, but provides the |collapsed= parameter to control visibility, so you need to use |collapsed=yes to force all to be hidden. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh...thank you. I guess that goes right after "shell" in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, right? I notice, at least in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, that a space is normally left after "Shell" and before the pipe. Should that space be added before the pipe after the last word (Shell, shell, Banners) in each one of those templates?  – Corinne (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It's just a normal named parameter; for the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template it would typically be placed after the template name but before the parameter |1= like the |blp=yes parameter. Spaces around the pipe and the equals sign are ignored, therefore optional, and so all of the following are equally valid:

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell| collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed =yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed= yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes |1=

or any combination of those - there are 32 possibilities, I didn't list them all. It can go also in either of two places: in the first line as just described, or the last line can be altered from

}}

to

 | collapsed = yes }}

all these spaces are again optional. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you for explaining.  – Corinne (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

engrailed (gene)

Redrose64, shouldn't the formatting of the title of an article that follows "Talk:" at the top of an article's talk page match the formatting of the title at the top of the article itself? I've come across an instance where they do not match, and I've tried to explain it to another editor, but perhaps I failed to make myself clear. Or perhaps I'm wrong about my assumption. See User talk:Apokryltaros#engrailed (gene). (Note something I have just learned. This is one of many words that, when in lower case and italicized, it is a gene and when in Roman font and capitalized it is a protein. See User talk:Corinne#Evolutionary developmental biology, Item 6.) You can reply here or there.  – Corinne (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Replied there. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Signature template

Hi Redrose64, I recently had a conversation with a user who is inadvertently using a signature template (discussion here). He does not seem to understand Transclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as {{User:Name/sig}}, for example) are forbidden for the following reasons. Though the other strange part of his reply is that he seems to suggest that his signature has not changed in years, and there was a point when his signature did not transclude {{trim}}, see Special:Diff/693971980. Any advice? I suppose I could bring this to WP:VPT in case someone know how the template just happens to appear in the signature without it being in the field as the user essentially claims. Thanks, — Andy W. (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC) amended 02:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahh... {{font color}} is being substituted into his signature, but not recursively substituted all the way, and the timing is just right. I believe I fixed the template issue. Apologies if this was noise — Andy W. (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Railway station routebox - where should it be placed?

I have noticed that many railway station articles now have their routebox placed at the foot of the page, beneath the "External links" heading and the associated links. For example Cold Norton railway station. To me this does not look right, but I recall (and cannot now find) editors referring to guidelines that navboxes should be at the foot of an article. Where are those guidelines, and is the Cold Norton example the correct and intended implementation? Efficacy (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Routeboxes are not navboxes, they are more akin to succession boxes. As such, they may be placed at the bottom of the article, or they may be placed at the bottom of a related section, such as one describing the services from that station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#Minor edits

Thank you, I suspected what you described might be the case. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Alive and kicking

It's been a long journey and nearly 3 years since seeing you at the Four Candles... Went down for a protracted period with cancer of the oesophagus but things a much better now and looking to get back to article creation so would like to meet up again sometime soon. Unfortunately we move in a couple of weeks from one side of Wokingham to the other so going through a busy period. Also, if I have failed to pick up on the Talkbox facility you can email me at (Redacted). I have a lot of updating on Wiki to do and some new articles but lack of recent activity is a handicap so a refresher would be of great help. Look forward to hearing from you and all the others in the Oxford area. Kind Regards.... G.GeoffH 112SU (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@GeoffH 112SU: sorry to hear that. Oxford meetups continue to be third Sunday of the month, except December as it's too close to Christmas. Next is 20 November 2016 --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

British and American English

Hello Redrose64. I note that you have performed a total 'undo' on my recent edits, citing "rv changes from British to American spelling", which rather surprised me since I am of English descent and born and raised in Kent, where I remember seeing Merchant Navy locomotives running and where I attended a grammar school in the 1950s. I presume that you have objected to my spellings of 'ageing', 'riveted' and 'riveting', but the Complete Oxford English Dictionary shows all of these as the generally preferred spellings in British English. Furthermore, your 'undo' has also undone edits which were minor corrections of grammar or punctuation, the correctness of which can be verified from any authoritative British English source. Blurryman (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hm, my OED

• Pearsall, Judy, ed. (1999). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Tenth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860259-6. LCCN 99020834. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

lists both "aging" and "ageing" (at my school the former was preferred); but it does indeed give "riveted"/"riveting" without variants. These two seem unusual when other participles (e.g. travelled/travelling) double the last consonant.

Anyway, I've undone. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Moving Abellio Greater Anglia to Greater Anglia (train operating company)

Hi Redrose64 (and anyone else who wants to have input! In particular, pinging Mjroots as another admin i've had help with in the past on UK railway articles) - I've closed the RM discussion at Talk:Abellio Greater Anglia and moved the article to Greater Anglia (train operating company) as per consensus. It would just be good to have another couple of sets of eyes who are active in the area of UK transport to make sure I haven't missed any references/non free image use rationales (incidentally - is there a way of checking these without clicking every image on the page?) when carrying out the move, as I've not done one on this scale for a while. Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mike1901: You don't need to click all the images. Use "What links here" on the old name, and restrict it to File: namespace, as in Abellio Greater Anglia and Greater Anglia. Compare Greater Anglia (train operating company). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

model railways sources

hello, i know we have been clashing but i wish to talk to you about sources relating to products, if a product is in the development page and has a news article about the product on bachmann or a retailer website such as hattons would you accept it and let it be up until it can be replaced as i feel people should be informed about the product and a primary source is quite reliable on what products they are going to make, sorry Teabagishere (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Teabagishere: Neither of them is independent. As shown at WP:3PARTY,

Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source. A first-party, non-independent source about the president of an environmental lobby group would be a report published by that lobby group's communications branch. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest related to the material.

So Bachmann's own website is a first-party source (inadmissible); that of Hatton's (who will retail the product) is second-party (barely admissible). What we need are writeups from such respected magazines as Railway Modeller, Model Railway Journal or Model Rail. These are third-party sources.

But if you "feel people should be informed about the product", you should be very careful that you are not in breach of WP:NOTADVERTISING or, worse, WP:SPAM. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

if i use a temporary source such as the bachmann websites for the announcments of products with a note they will be changed when sources permit will you leave them up, even though bachmann is a primary source they do not sell the products on there site and the news articles have no links to other sitesTeabagishere (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

i am asking this in relation to the LNWR coal tank locomotive which only has news announcments on bachmannTeabagishere (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What part of WP:3PARTY allows primary sources to be used as "a temporary source"? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

An article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance, this part essential allows it to be used as a temporary source until a third party of more appropriate source is found Teabagishere (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Problamistic User Uanfala

It had been extended edit war by Uanfala [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] .

• Despite nearly 10 Wikipedians not agreeing with his views on talk pages of effected Talk pages.
• He cherry picks and tries to define dialects in to Language.
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
• Wikipedians can not cherry pick.
• Wikipedians can not impose a point a view.
• Wikipedians move with consensus.
• Wikipedia is an informational project. It can not misguide about language hierarchy.
• Only standardisation of few dialects can not make them language. However few follow this rule for defining Hindko Saraiki Potwari as language. He cherry pick those.
• Even those "few" along with "opposite others" have details whether "Explicit" or "Implicit" which demonstrate a common hierarchy Language Family: Indo European, Branch: Indo Iranian, Sub branch: Indo Aryan, Macro Language: Punjabi, Language: Western Punjabi, Dialects: Potwari Hindko Saraiki and many others, Sub dialects: North Hindko South Hindko.
• All such linguistic sources are mentioned / added by many wikipedians.
• If we accept Uanfala version of "cherry pick" and "Defining" then we will end up with a dilemma mentioned by User Flipro on this move request for 30 odd Punjabi dialects [6].

Time to report User Uanfala for topic ban for Cherry picking, Forum shoping, Edit warring, ignoring talk page consensus on western punjabi diffrent dialect talk pages. Please you being a registered senior editor start the proceeding for Topic Ban and violation of 3Rs. 39.60.232.41 (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)₯€₠€₯

The above message was also posted on the talk pages of several other users, and it has already received responses on Andy Wang's and on Paine Ellsworth's. – Uanfala (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw it at User talk:Paine Ellsworth before I saw it here. I shall ignore it, as it wasn't posted to a proper noticeboard but instead went against WP:CANVAS. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Re

Clearly unintentional -- people do make mistakes, surprisingly. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Railway accident

At 19:01, 26 September 2016‎, You deleted someone's entry about a railway accident. It only took me a few seconds to find a reference for it :-- http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=127 Can you please try to correct and improve other folks' contributions, instead of destroying them ?

Also, I put an entry in the Talk page about an accident in 1838 :-- Talk:List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom Perhaps you would like to make a précis and table entry for that ? ; but if you can't improve it, leave it as it is. 78.147.36.12 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There is far too much made-up crud and outright hoaxing being added to Wikipedia. It is your responsibility to provide a reference, and that must be placed in the article. Talk page discussions count for nothing towards the satisfaction of WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

History of rail transport in Great Britain‎

Hi,

Just seen your edit. Appreciate the sentiment but surely the point is that Intercity was purely a passenger service. LMS and the others were, in their heyday, primarily freight railways with passenger services as an additional, more high profile, part of the operation. You'd have to go back to the early days of the Met to find a purely passenger railway that made a profit.

Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What I didn't say - because there wasn't room in the WP:ES - is that the source used isn't what we would understand by an independent source. Although not a direct publication of one of the railway companies (it's a staff magazine), it's in their own interest to big-up the modern railway system (whether they admit it or not, all management watches what the workforce are saying about the company, and promotes or holds back accordingly), so the content is not going to be something that would satisfy WP:NPOV either. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fairy snuff Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Just as a drive by TPW point of order, the Met was never "a purely passenger railway" until the late 1960s; it carried freight services along its length right from the time it opened (initially mainly meat from West Country farms to Smithfield, and later milk from Buckinghamshire to London, as well as the usual coal, bricks, industrial rubble, parcels etc) although because their rolling stock was fairly ropey, the freight services on the Widened Lines were usually hauled by GWR and GNR locos. On the outer reaches, the Met was very much a freight company with passenger services tacked on as an afterthought, particularly on the Verney Junction and Brill branches, and on the Uxbridge route prior to their decision to build intermediate stations between Uxbridge and Ruislip. ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Redrose64.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit counter userbox

Hi there, just a quick question. I saw your userbox that says how many edits you've done in total and on each language Wikipedia, and I assume those are probably from an admin tool/counter, but there's an edit counter for general users from X! as well and I have my own set up here. Would you happen to know how I can add this as a userbox? Google has been of no help so far :( Yilangren (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There are two problems with using those edit counters: one, they emit a report, you can't tell them to return a single figure; two, they are run on the fly, not stored statically. My edit count userboxes all read a figure that is read from User:Redrose64/constants - mostly these needs to be updated manually (like this), and so they get very out of date; but the one for English Wikipedia, presently displaying as "157,000+", is generated daily by Cyberbot I (talk · contribs). This bot stores some figures in Template:Adminstats/Redrose64, careful use of which allows a single figure to be returned: {{adminstats|Redrose64|style=raw ed+del}} → 274407. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help, much appreciated! Yilangren (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Template : Brecon and Merthyr Railway RDT

Can you correct the computer coding to ensure that Groesffordd Halt at the top of this template is in exactly the same geographical position as on the template for the Mid-Wales Railway 109.152.147.177 (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to link to the page where the problem lies, otherwise you leave me guessing. Is this in relation to Template:Brecon and Merthyr Railway, which at present, is broken - and coincidentally, the breakage concerns a row showing "Groesffordd Halt". This was added by Xenophon Philosopher (talk · contribs); which leads me to my next q: are you Xenophon Philosopher? If so, please log in. If not, your post here is your only edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That user appears to be one of my sons who saw the problem that I faced and he was trying to help, as he had asked me who was a good person to contact and I immediately thought of you. I saw the notification flagged up on my account. However, my attempt to show Groesffordd Halt, on the correct side of the Talyllyn tunnel appears to have achieved naught, as the template still makes no mention of it. Is there any reason why Groesffordd Halt can be shown at the end of the template on the Mid-Wales Railway and also at the start of the template for the Brecon and Merthyr Railway, for indeed, Brecon Free Street is shown on both templates. I will be interested to hear your views on that matter. Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher:  Done by Useddenim (talk · contribs), in this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

EWRL electrification

If you get a moment, would you check my update to East West Rail Link under 'announcements'. In inferring a consequence to the deferral of Didcot - Oxford electrification on EWRL, have I offended wp:crystal more than trivially? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It was all over BBC TV News Oxford last night. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Absolutelypuremilk reverted my inference as being OR, which I suppose is fair. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Keep an eye on the Chancellor's Autumn Statement next week. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_person/doc

Just what my edit summary states, your summary doesn't explain why you don't like it. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary is "Define link trgts", which you use often - but means nothing. I assume that "trgts" is short for "targets" - but why do they need "defining" when they are already defined? From what I can tell by examining the actual edits (and not your summaries), you are bypassing redirects: this is is not only unnecessary, it goes against WP:NOTBROKEN. Regarding my question "what *is* that mess for?", I fail to see how altering a link that uses meaningful commas to one that uses cryptic encodings like ".2C" is in any way useful or constructive. The link "Do not use a flag template" works - why is it necessary to alter it? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If the links are already piped, how is changing the "trgt" to the actual link/page against WP:NOTBROKEN ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes the link through a redir is intentional, there are six reasons listed at WP:NOTBROKEN. In particular, you frequently go against the fourth one ("Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors ..."). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That's very thin rational, I do not mess with anchors, seems you're reaching for straws to validate your personal opinion revert. My edits do not violate WP:NOTBROKEN, you also seem to think that if a redirect is available it must be used. Unless you have something subtantial and not personal opinion such as unnecessary or not useful or not constructive I'll be on my way and resume my 8 year editing pattern and revert you revert on Template:Infobox person/doc. Happy editing, - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Redrose64. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Margam railway station

Moved to Template talk:South Wales Railway RDT

 – Useddenim (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

List markup

Hi Redrose.

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADeletion_process&type=revision&diff=750788138&oldid=750787623

"fix horrendous list markup - accessibility"

Can you explain yourself please? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's something that comes up again and again at WT:ACCESSIBILITY. Basically, it's all about not mis-nesting lists and so causing problems for screen reader software. When you have markup like this:

*First opinion
*:Reply to first opinion
*::Reply to reply
*:Second reply to first opinion
*Second opinion

Here's the emitted HTML for that:

<ul>
  <li>First opinion
    <dl>
      <dd>Reply to first opinion
        <dl>
          <dd>Reply to reply</dd>
        </dl>
      </dd>
      <dd>Second reply to first opinion</dd>
    </dl>
  </li>
  <li>Second opinion</li>
</ul>

there is a single bulleted list, with two items. Inside the first item, there is colon-indenting, which makes an association list within the bulleted list. So there are two kinds of list, one nested inside the other. Now let's move the asterisks from beginning (correct) to end (incorrect)

*First opinion
:*Reply to first opinion
::*Reply to reply
:*Second reply to first opinion
*Second opinion

Here's the emitted HTML for that:

<ul>
  <li>First opinion</li>
</ul>
<dl>
  <dd>
    <ul>
      <li>Reply to first opinion</li>
    </ul>
    <dl>
      <dd>
        <ul>
          <li>Reply to reply</li>
        </ul>
      </dd>
    </dl>
    <ul>
      <li>Second reply to first opinion</li>
    </ul>
  </dd>
</dl>
<ul>
  <li>Second opinion</li>
</ul>

Immediately it's apparent that it's a lot longer, and more complex. At the outermost level we now have three lists instead of one - there are two bulleted lists (each with one item) and between them there is an association list with two items. The first item contains two lists - a single-item bulleted list, and another association list with one item - which itself contains a single-item bulleted list. The second item contains a single-item bulleted list. There is no longer any relation between an opinion and its replies, nor between one opinion and the next. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• I maybe almost, but don't, get it. Compare with this "fix" by User:Godsy. I don't see the accessibility impact, knowing little of screen readers, and have generally copied the indenting style of editors commenting before me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Your reply appeared as "

• • • this"

While my change made it appear correctly as "

• this"

If the bullet "chain" is broken, it appears incorrectly, e.g. *comment 1, **comment 2, ::*comment3, ****comment4 does not appear as if comment three was formatted as ***comment3; in other words if someone uses colons in a subsequent tier of conversation, you can't follow it on the next tier with all bullets or it displays incorrectly.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe and Godsy: The basic principle is that you copy the list markup of the line above, and add one character (which might be any of : * # depending upon the desired effect) on the right-hand end of the markup that you copied. Godsy's fix is therefore incorrect, because it produces exactly the same problems that I described at 21:52, 21 November 2016. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reversal of an edit

You reversed a recent edit on Pontefract Baghill railway station without making any further changes. I'm sure you meant well in applying WP:IG (which makes sense after all), but I think you have been a little hasty. There aren't that many pictures, and introducing the gallery section (which was not meant to stay for long) had at least brought some semblance of order to the article layout. It's a fairly short article, and that calls for grouping the photos somehow. If you meant to say that there could have been fewer or better pictures, I fully agree, but I did not select them, and did not want to decide right away which ones to change. Give it some time. If you (or anybody else) have any better pictures, feel free to share them. I'll keep looking, too. --Schlosser67 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

In general, a gallery is unnecessary, per WP:IG - particularly when all the images are in c:Category:Pontefract Baghill railway station and a {{commons category-inline|Pontefract Baghill railway station}} is present. It's almost always best to put the images in relevant sections, otherwise the gallery simply becomes a dumping ground for any images that a passing photographer might have uploaded and to which they wish to give prominence without regard to their encyclopedic value.

• 
  A 1912 Railway Clearing House Junction Diagram showing (lower right) railways in the vicinity of Pontefract Baghill (shown here as S & K Jnt)

For example, an image like File:Cutsyke, Crofton, Normanton, Altofts, Methley, Lofthouse, Oakenshaw & Wakefield RJD 52.jpg shows the context of the station in relation to the lines and other stations of the area, and so is best placed in a section which describes the setting - and Pontefract Baghill railway station#History has phrases which simply cry out for a map - like "was also once linked to the Wakefield, Pontefract & Goole main line by means of a short chord to Pontefract Monkhill near the intersection of the two lines" - hence the phrase "as shown on the accompanying RCH map", and the actual presence of said RCH map. Putting it in a gallery makes it so tiny as to be worthless as an image, besides divorcing it from the text which it accompanies. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about gallery images being too tiny to be useful, and my eyesight is not exactly improving, either. You say yourself "almost always"; this might have been a case of a short article with few sections where for layout reasons a gallery actually "marries" the images to the text. But - as you have seen - I have changed the article further so that at present no gallery may be necessary anyway. --Schlosser67 (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"Putting it in a gallery makes it so tiny as to be worthless as an image" is not about all gallery images being too tiny to be useful, but that particular one. I've added the image concerned to this thread, as a one-image gallery, to demonstrate just how tiny and useless it becomes. It's 120px wide, slightly more than half the default size for thumb images (220px). At that scale, you can hardly make out the lines, and none of the text - it might as well be a small child's scribble. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a good example (well, maybe to others who by chance read this), as I wouldn't put that one in a gallery anyway. I only put the photos in (temporarily). Let's give it a rest for now and decide on a case-by-case basis if the problem comes up ever again. --Schlosser67 (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Alo

lol Lets all band together and erase anything against the lion over the tiger, we Wikipedia dont allow that and will do anything we like because the truth should never be known to the public.(even though we dont own wikipedia)...huuuuuuuur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotaci (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

and blocked sixteen minutes later. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Grid for Learning - education initiatives

My interest in Coldharbour Mill Working Wool Museum is more than cursory. I have been working up a proposal to bring to the attention of Teachers/Students/Parents that an article may be relevant/essential to the course/syllabus/NC topic that they are focusing on. It is documented in User:ClemRutter/proposal and I may need a little technical help on the Template design (for the mock up I hope to use tables). One possibility is to approach it as a project and for the assessment, have a container template which will display a list of child templates each of which will have the usual class=|importance= stuff along with a lot more. The container template would also need to nest within the WikiProjectBannerShell:. Have you any thoughts on who has the time and the ability to help? For practical purposes I am looking at trialing it with National curriculum and a couple of GCSE courses. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

When people screw up their WikiProject templates, it's usually myself or MSGJ (talk · contribs) who fixes them. I've created the doc page for several dozen, normally based upon what the template actually does (and not on what the WikiProject would like it to do). --Redrose64 (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Riley and Son deletion discussion

Hi, given your interest in railway matters, I would appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riley and Son. It's not my area, really, and I got involved by accident. Thanks Mcewan (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Is a map reading "original research"?

Surely taking the measurement of distance on a map as being OR is taking it a bit far isn't it? How else are we to measure the geographic scales of anything unless we have some specific source giving the exact distance. You could argue that as a map has a scale that it already provides the necessary information as a source could you not? G-13114 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Your "ref", in full, is <ref>Google Maps distance measurement</ref> which is rather vague: the lack of a specific source means that WP:V is not satisfied. You are making an analysis of (presumably) published material that serves to reach a conclusion not stated by the source. This is from WP:NOR, which goes on to state "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Even the words "distance measurement" are a red flag for original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can perform a distance measurement on GM, so I don't see why that isn't verifiable. Also, that may apply to written sources, but does it apply to maps? A map can't state a conclusion, but you could argue that the information is already implicit within the map. G-13114 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm not sure it's ever specifically come up at WP:RSN, but as Google Maps is user-editable and notoriously full of pranks, hoaxes and errors, I'd be extremely reluctant to ever consider it a reliable source for anything but the most basic of information. ‑ Iridescent 17:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	thank you for your contribution on adventist today and spectrum magazine and thank you for letting me know about my mistakes Jonnymoon96 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of my content.

Moved to User talk:Polly Jackson § December 2016

 – Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please advise why you removed updates to Stone Crossing Wiki. The information was CORRECT.

Please advise why you removed updates to Stone Crossing Wiki. The information was CORRECT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.235.234 (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The only wikis that I have edited are listed here and none of them is called "Stone Crossing". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would assume this edit at Stone Crossing railway station is the one referred to. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It was not only unsourced but had all the appearance of a comment that properly belongs on the article's talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Merry Xmas. 🎅

Now with that out of the way, I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall, trying to explain why pseudo-headings are a bad idea at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee #Protected edit request on 13 December 2016. If you had a minute to spare ... Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's just it... with Christmas coming up, I'm working 6 days a week now instead of 4, and the shop manager is also trying out late evening opening. Monday I worked 12:00-20:30; yesterday 12:00 to 19:15; today I'm on 09:00 to 18:00. This means that I have a 22-hour watchlist backlog which by the time I get home tonight will be 34 hours. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was sorted. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It was. And a Happy New Year! --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No move warring on Wirral line

Please unprotect. Note that the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. See User_talk:Dicklyon#Wirral_Line_page_move. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No. It was moved three times in 32 hours, the last one just 7 minutes before I move-protected it, which without discussion is two moves too many. If nobody wants to move the page again, the move-protection is of no consequence, and will expire on 13 January 2017. If you (or somebody else) want to move it again without discussion, the protection will prevent further move-warring and so is warranted; if you (or somebody else) wants to move it again with discussion, the way to do that is a WP:RM at Talk:Wirral line, not somebody's user talk page, and if that RM results in consensus to move, the closing admin will be able to perform that move. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind it being move protected, as there's no dispute about it being at the right title now, but I tried to edit it and it was fully protected. Dicklyon (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Works now. Perhaps the system was just confused because I was in the middle of an edit when you changed the protection. Thanks and sorry for the bother. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: It was edit-protected for about 59 seconds (from 23:27:05 until 23:28:04) because I used the wrong drop-down when protecting, see the prot log for the page. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As for why your pp tag was removed, that was accident; I had kept a copy of my editted version, and just pasted it over on my second attempt to edit, and didn't notice that I squashed the tag that had come in minutes earlier. Sorry. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Alan Evans

Sorry for any confusion. My redlink proved to be unnecessary as we already have the Allan Evans dab page, where the existing Alan Evans is listed. I was hoping a dab page link there might help new editor Andiwindsoruk, but he jumped right in and used that link for his new article. I'm not sure the individual he has in mind is sufficiently notable for an article, but we'll see. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't discern any notability; and it's clear he was writing about a living person, so I applied WP:CSD#A7 in line with the tagging by Seacactus 13 (talk · contribs). Also, the edit summary upon creation was "Added a friends details", so there was a conflict of interest and strong WP:NOTYOU. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The small glimpse I got of that draft led me to much the same conclusion. And I also spotted the "my friend" comment. No issues with the deletion, I just wanted to offer a glimmer of light before the door was slammed shut so quickly in his face, in case I appeared, you know.... a bit "bitey"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Oxford area RDT

Your ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’ approach to edits that you disagree with is not appreciated. Instead of just hitting revert, you should fix the the specific change you object to.

With respect to your edit summary “if you want to convert to {{BS-map}}, please do so *without* compromising the carefully-planned layout. Rewley Road and General were so close together that parallel lines are intentional here”, if you actually compare the two edits you will see that the two stations were not moved one iota. (The change involved removed the kinks between Wolvercote/Oxford North Jn and Exchange sidings/Sheepwash Channel.)

The latest edit now has General and Rewley Road as close as possible without actually combining them. I hope you’re satisfied (altho’ you’ll probably complain about the location of Oxford Goods next).

This kind of lazy editing is inappropriate for an admin. Useddenim (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Useddenim: I did not hit revert: in fact, there is no such button - I have "undo", and "rollback"; and I used neither. If I had, this diff would show no difference. I copied all the {{BS3-2}} etc. rows from the previous version into yours. Before doing this, I did compare the two versions, and almost every row had been changed - the only one which you left alone was that for Oxford Road Halt.

It has been established for a long time now that before making wholesale changes that others might disagree with, you should discuss. You have been asked before not to steamroller your changes through. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh come off the hyperbole. The two versions are shown here side-by-side with highlighting, and eleven of the 25 rows were completely unchanged, with much of the remainder consisting of changes to the text labels. The revised geometry actually brought the RDT closer to the RCH Junction Diagram for the area (except possibly for the Exchange sidings, which were subsequently revised).

Yes, I know there’s no revert button—that was artistic license on my part (analogous to BRD)—but you have to admit that is essentially what you did, template header and footer aside. Visually and functionally there was no change. So on the whole, I hardly think I made a ‘wholesale change’ that was ‘steamrollered’ through.

On a more collegial note, Shouldn’t the River Thames be included for completeness, as well as possible the reservoir near Hinksey Halt (to explain the diversion of the Grandpont Goods loop)? Useddenim (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The River Thames (or Isis) is complicated near Oxford, splitting and recombining often, with in some areas as many as four separate courses (not all of them natural). I only included Sheepwash Channel (which is artificial) because of the swing bridge. The reservoir is a flooded gravel pit, and was dug after the railway line was diverted; the diversion was to give a straighter and shorter route into Oxford General from the south. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. So can I assume that the current version of the diagram is (reasonably) acceptable to all? Useddenim (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No it's not. From MOS:FONTSIZE: "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize (or 11px)." All of the font sizes smaller than that used for "Millstream Junction" breach that bright-line rule. I've reverted so please sort out a layout that doesn't use such small text before changing again. --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, the lazy editors way of ‘fixing’ thing: just revert (his wording, not mine this time!), ignoring all of the other changes in favour of half a dozen lines of text. Besides, now’s a fine time to raise this issue. You’re a little late to the party, given that {{BSsplit}} (transcluded onto 4,530 pages) has been in use since 2011, and its deprecated predecessor {{BSkm}} (still in use on 615 pages) for almost a decade.
Apparently the version you want is this; which is noticeably wider than what it started out as! Useddenim (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Enough with the digs Useddenim - like myself, RexxS (talk · contribs) doesn't have 20/20 vision. Claiming "in use since 2011" is no excuse for violating WCAG. I myself have never used either {{BSsplit}} or {{BSkm}} in any RDTs. If an RDT is too wide (a subjective assessment), I consider altering the wording, not imposing font shrinkage. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This user is farsighted.

Fine. The digs are my way of pushing back against wholesale reversion of a ‘problem’—real or presumed—rather than addressing the one particular issue in question—text size—(which you can’t deny is what RexxS did here). (And for what it’s worth, I myself am farsighted.) Useddenim (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Don't call me lazy, sonny. I'm a volunteer here, the same as anybody else. When you screw up, take some responsibility for your mistakes instead of whining about other editors restoring a page to the last good version that didn't breach MOS. I'm not under any obligation to let you waste my time by unpicking the mess you made. We have a 'revert' button for a reason - and you're it. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a mistake; it was an improvement: better layout and reduction in white-space. The only ‘mistake’ was in engaging with you two. Useddenim (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Template : Erewash Valley line RDT

I don't know if anyone has this on a monitoring list, but when the new station of Ilkeston opens (supposedly by the end of 2016 but now said to be early 2017), it is said to be on the same site as the closed station of Ilkeston Junction and Cossall that is shown on the existing line template. I looked at the template talk page but no entries are shown upon this.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering if you found out anything about the matter yet.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) has lived in that area, have you asked them? --Redrose64 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas Redrose64. Have a wonderful time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs) 09:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Redrose64: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you

Thank you for fixing my mistake with Bus.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

All the best for 2017!

Hello Redrose64,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Redrose64! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Are they all necessary?

It's a divisive article which, as Jytdog said, can't decide whether it's about a meme or a serious encyclopedic subject. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

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

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Redrose64, Thank you for your feedback and edits. You taught me something new re. linking to commons. I thought you might like to know that I did go on to raise a WP:SPI but as the sockpuppet was created over two years ago and hasn't been used since, the SPI was closed. I have no doubt there more troublesome WP:SOCK matters than this historical one to deal with. Thanks again. Luther Blissetts (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

wow

didnt realise you're father christmas and a happy new year rolled into one... hard to know where to start..

• WikiProject Ecoregions got started but not even to stage one for proper assessment framework...
• WikiProject Indonesia all it needs if the others agree is a sentence with a link to the spelling page in the body of text

Its not every morning I wake up to something like your comment at the Indonesian project. Like reading all the recurring nuisance socks have been permablocked by magic, or.... it is staggering. JarrahTree 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Huntingdon Rail Station.

The previous article contain serious errors Services which had been withdrawn in 2012 were still showing. Also services which no longer call at Railway Station.

Please note that Stagecoach Bus-Way and Rail system is connecting service with Plus bus tickets for through ticketing. as are Whippet services also accepting Plus-Bus.

The service list updated previous data which was very wide of the mark following funding cuts in 2011,2012 and 2013.There were further service reduction in November 2016 by Whippet. There is also a cull in January 2017 by Stagecoach of certain service workings on some routes but no service withdrawn.

Most of the services shown except 45 are Commercial services

Unless you live in Huntingdon l suggest you leave local link data alone, yes it about Huntingdon Rail Station but the section relates to Connections by bus to other areas as part of Cambridgeshire Travel Plan and Bus way Intergration to link both Huntingdon and Cambridge Rail Stations by bus and provide a connections to Peterborough when rail system is non operational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkbooks (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This railway station is served by Thames Travel bus route X32

@Mkbooks: My edit is here: if you check it again you will see that I did not add any out-of-date information, whether from 2012 or otherwise; and whether I live in Huntingdon or not has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia has certain core policies, these include those of verifiability, no original research and neutrality, all of which were violated by this edit. If you're wondering why I consider it to be non-neutral - this is an article about a railway station, not a local transport guide, so see WP:UNDUE. It has long been established that articles about railway stations may give brief details on buses that serve the station, but this does not extend to buses that stop some distance away, nor to giving lists of places served, or the days and times that they operate. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not a local travel guide but true state transport links for road/rail connections

for which Rail tickets (Plus-Bus) can be used on.

The fact as non resident you will not be aware that there are two bus stops on the Railway Station approach as well a bus only loop on the concourse In your edit you were in violation by removing this data OK l will give you that bus station is not at the Railway Station but railway tickets bought under plusbus can be used at Bus Station. Times are not normally given as they change frequent under terms of Transport act 1985.

Your edit is now incomplete and a very poor reflection of services around the station and to/from it. It is a long standing wikedpia policy to give bus links to/from the railway station or very near by in case the railway station approach. Your edit make the entry meaningless to a visitor or user of the railway station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.165.227 (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You claim "it is a long standing wikedpia policy to give bus links to/from the railway station" - if it is Wikipedia policy, please provide a link to the relevant policy page. Verifiability is Wikipedia policy, but when I mention it, I always provide a link to the actual policy, as I did in my previous reply.

Articles on railway stations are about the railway station itself, not about the general area, nor about bus routes or even bus stations (with certain defined exceptions, such as Altrincham Interchange - but even there, we don't go into detail). When a railway station article speaks of it being served by a bus route, we mean that the bus stop is right outside, or if there are no stops outside, we may tolerate them being perhaps a short walk along the street.

PlusBus validity has nothing to do with it. It is possible to buy rail tickets to Oxford which include PlusBus on all routes of four different operators in the city (plus some outlying towns and villages) - yet to catch a bus to Begbroke, Kidlington or Yarnton, it is necessary to walk to Magdalen Street; and to catch a bus to Garsington or Kennington, you need to walk to St Aldate's. Both of these are more than 1,000 metres (0.62 mi) from the rail station. Our article on Oxford railway station does not describe the routes of Arriva Shires & Essex, Oxford Bus Company, Stagecoach in Oxfordshire or Thames Travel, all of which operate in Oxford, and on all of which PlusBus is valid - and nor should it do. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal to delete the category "Barilla plants"

Dear friend, as you must surely know, the purpose of a category is to help would-be enquirers into a certain subject navigate more efficiently to other pages that treat on the same subject. Why then are you proposing that we delete a category that is used for various plants in our ecosystem that are all classified as "Barilla plants", that is, plants that are salt-tolerant (halophyte) plants, such as the saltworts, and those plants containing high quantities of either soda, sodium and chloride? It makes no sense to me. Can you please explain your motive?Davidbena (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I made no such proposal. My only edit relating to that category is this one, which I made because the category was listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. To put it another way: when you created the category, you put it inside itself - and in no other category, which does not "help would-be enquirers into a certain subject navigate more efficiently to other pages that treat on the same subject".

Why do you think that I proposed it for deletion? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Aha! Now I understand you. Thanks for explaining. I, obviously, misunderstood your intention. My apologies to you, and may you have good success in all that you do on this venue, Wilikipedia. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year Redrose64!

Happy New Year!

Redrose64,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

My edits

Mr. Redrose64

I think you have made a mistake. My edits to those pages are true.

Yours sincerely,

Tobias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.170.208 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you have made a mistake. According to your contributions, you have made only one edit - which is your post above. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.170.208 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Redrose64! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Unprotection

Unprotect Video game content rating system article! 79.153.65.156 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? Britmax (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Redrose64!

Happy New Year!

Redrose64,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Pppery 05:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Redrose64!

Happy New Year!

Redrose64,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 18:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Doncaster rail crash

Thanks for explaining the use of the hatnote. But I am still wondering why the smaller of the two crashes had a dedicated wiki page, but the bigger one did not. Valetude (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because nobody's written it yet? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Eyes needed

The British Rail Class 31 article may need a weather eye kept on it. 50044 exeter's editing is starting to look questionable at best. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed. I've been watching it for years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

link to a category

Happy new year Redrose. How do I link a page to a category. On the Great Eastern Railway page (section 9.2) I have tried to add a link to the Directors of the Great Eastern category but cannot get ti to work. Help!--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit being this one. With a link like [[Directors of the Great Eastern Railway|here]] which yields here, you're not linking to a category, but to a (non-existent) article; you need to include the namespace prefix in the link. There are two ways of doing this:

1. by using the {{cl}} template: {{cl|Directors of the Great Eastern Railway|here}} which yields here
2. by actually putting in the namespace prefix: [[:Category:Directors of the Great Eastern Railway|here]] (notice the extra colon at the start) which yields here

See also WP:CLICKHERE and WP:EGG. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Crofton Park Station

Hello,

Thank you for your message, however the information we added is factual and not meant to be "soapboxing". Please can you kindly rephrase the information rather than remove it? It is important to include information about the user group and a link to the website so please can you amend this in a way that suits the content rather than just deleting it?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.74.62 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NPOV and also WP:ELNO. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi There,

You keep removing information about the Crofton Park usergroup saying its "soapboxing" yet this is factually correct information and has been referenced.

Instead of just removing it, please can you either amend it or explain what needs to be done to rephrase?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.74.62 (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The only reference that you have given is the link to your pressure group's own website. Therefore, since Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, you need to find reliable, independent and neutral sources, in accordance with our core content policies of neutrality, verifiability and no original research. In addition, you are making unverified claims about a living person, and so the policy on living persons applies too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

British Rail Class 153

Hi You have noticed some corrections I have been trying to make on the Class 153 rail vehicle page. I'm new to editing so am having some difficulty. I was in charge of the Class 153 work programme. Regards John Wood --Jwoch (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jwoch: the problem with British Rail Class 153 is that, three times now (18:16 to 18:31, 9 October 2016, 21:04 to 21:08, 24 November 2016, 21:19 to 21:36, 24 November 2016), you have removed information which was (fairly) reliably sourced, and replaced it with information which is either unsourced, or sourced only to somebody named "John Wood", who (given your post above) is presumably yourself. On the third occasion, you also broke the page formatting, leaving a mess of red error messages in the References section. Your repeated edits might be seen as edit-warring, and with the breakage that I have described, even disruptive.

Personal knowledge does not satisfy the policy on verifiability, and also goes against the policy on original research; and if you really were in charge of the Class 153 work programme, then you have a conflict of interest and so your edits are unlikely to satisfy our policy on neutrality. You are free to make suggestions on the article's talk page regarding corrections and clarifications, so long as you respect the talk page guidelines. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Redrose64

I am new to trying to make corrections to Wikipedia. Ill health also limits how often I can participate. My personal interest is in the Class 153 diesel railcars and I have been trying to make corrections and get the Company's and my personal contribution correctly detailed. The Class 155's were converted to Class 153 by Leyland Bus. The work was carried out at the Leyland Rail plant located on Derwent Ho, Workington. I was both the Project and Works Manager of the whole exercise.

I'm obviously struggling to get things right and must apologise to all affected.

If you could assist - and take some credit, I would be pleased if you could make contact.

JW Jwoch (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jwoch: Pretty sure I have explained this before. Wikipedia has certain core content policies, these include verifiability, no original research and neutrality. Your edits to British Rail Class 153 have gone against at least the first two of these, since they have removed sourced information and replaced it with information that is either not sourced, or comes from your own personal experiences. If you worked on the project, you should also respect the guideline concerning conflicts of interest. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

References

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

regarding Talk:Severus Snape and the Marauders

I was not aware that suggested popups in the Rater tool could be invalid template targets. In all other instances I've encountered, suggested results in the rater tool link to valid wikiproject templates. Apologies for that, I'll preview when using unfamiliar projects in the future.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: What is this "Rater tool" of which you speak? It might explain why I come across so many redlinked WikiProjects - up to twenty a week. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. It is incredibly useful for adding and editing wikiprojects, though it is prone to error like everything else I suppose. I notice that it now has a warning that it is unstable and you should check the preview, so perhaps that was the issue, but as I said, I haven't had many problems before as it has been working fairly flawlessly for months for me (though I generally use it for the obvious wikiprojects like 'biography'). I know now that I've got to check its suggestions if they are not wikiprojects that I am familiar with.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I found User:Kephir/gadgets/rater/projects.js and removed the entry. Let's see if somebody complains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Good work, if I notice any similar I might do the same. I don't think Kephir has been working on it for some time now, but it is still a very useful gadget, if I had any coding experience I might take it over, but unfortunately, I don't ...  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, have this!  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fact-now

Template:Fact-now has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery 20:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
(The request is about Dicklyon, but your own conduct has been mentioned.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to see you sanctioned, only to have you reconsider posts like the one at issue, and to get the vexatious "re-ANI" against Dicklyon closed quickly (again). I'm skeptical that you can't actually see my point that posting an 'I'm predicting (without checking) that a particular editor is to blame for the current dispute, and everyone should go do enforcement research against him, especially regarding ANI' message at a topical wikiproject, in mid-dispute, after the project was non-neutrally canvassed to go bloc vote in the dispute, and when you've repeatedly been in similar style disputes with the editor in question yourself, is probably not constructive or appropriate, even aside from expectations about admins, and regardless what motivated it. As I said at the ANI thread, I'm not looking to get into a debate with you about the motivations; I care about the actions and their part in the escalation of the dispute, and in not seeing a repeat. If you have what you think is incontrovertible evidence an editor is being disruptive, you should just take it to ANI yourself (or AE or RFARB if you think it rises to that level), don't you agree?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I would have taken it to ANI if I thought that ANI was warranted. In this case, I didn't.

Now to what raised my suspicions. I followed the first discussion link that Bermicourt provided at WT:RAIL#Potential mass move of railway articles could hinge on discussion at one article - it was Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony. Whose name should I see as the creator of both threads at that page? Yes, it was Dicklyon. Then I looked at Bermicourt's move log, and checked the history of some (not all) of the moved pages; and whose name came up again and again? Yes. You know who. So, there you are: no actual predicting was involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. But suppose I strike that part (just did, see above). I think my 20:43, 30 January 2017 comment above still stands with that part removed. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Some questions

Hello R. I hope that you are well. The first question is Dr Who related. I find myself liking An Adventure in Space and Time more and more each time I watch it. Do you know if the house used for the exteriors of the Hartnell home is the one where William and his family lived in real life? The other questions relate to our old friend Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I have forgotten what needs to be done when articles like Cheetos and Galileo Galilei show up in the list. Also, there are three sandboxes and one admin toolbox that have been in the cat for several months. Is there anything that you can do to remove them from it. If not no worries. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: These six edits fixed them. Of these, that to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring fixed User:CorbieVreccan/Admin Toolbox; and those to Template:Periodic table (32 columns, compact)/doc and Template:WikiProject Visual arts/doc fixed Template:Periodic table (32 columns, compact)/sandbox and Template:WikiProject Visual arts/sandbox respectively. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your looking into this and fixing everything and for taking the time to add these links to show me what you did. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Close to 1400 articles showed up in the category today. I looks as though it has to do with the protections performed by Maile66 to various "cleanup" and "plot size" templates starting at 13:15. M added protection templates to those then they were removed by Dbresser. I am not sure what needs to be done to get the articles out of the category so your expertise is needed. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It was this edit by Maile66 (talk · contribs) which did it. Quite apart from being entirely unnecessary (since the template's documentation automatically handles any pp icon padlocks that may be appropriate), it wasn't inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> which is essential on a template (or any other transcluded page) when the addition relates to the templates itself, and not to the pages the template is used in. The correct action is to revert: which Debresser (talk · contribs) has already done, but it will take some hours (perhaps days) for all the affected pages to pass through the job queue. If that will take too long, you can WP:NULLEDIT each affected page individually (we could send in Joe's Null Bot (talk · contribs) to do that, but I believe that Joe Decker (talk · contribs) is still having difficulties there). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I guessed that it was something along these lines. There is no hurry on this. It is good to know that they will be drop out of the category eventually. As ever many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 20:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for my error. Thanks for letting me know. — Maile (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: Another question: why were you protecting template doc pages? Apart from one instance, they had never been edited improperly, so I've lifted the protection entirely on all of them - except for one where I could find only one disruptive edit: so I reverted that and reduced the protection to expire tomorrow. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine. When I protected 3 templates, a message appeared below the request on at Requests for page protection "Automated comment: @Maile66: One or more pages in this request have not been protected.—cyberbot I 13:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)" Two completed requested are still on the request page, if you want to look at it. Template:More plot, Template:No plot. Template:Cleanup list was part of that, but it seems to be gone from the requests page. It's not like we have an instruction manual, you know. It was an error message, I thought. I reacted to it. If associated pages were not protected, the documentation page is an associated page. It didn't make sense to protect the sandboxes, so I left them alone. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: I see what happened: although you indicated on the RFPP page that you had template-protected the three templates, you had in fact only semi-protected them. I very much suspect that this inconsistency is what caused the "One or more pages in this request have not been protected" message to be displayed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Ha! Thank you so very much for the information. Being an admin is sometimes feeling one's way through the dark. I somewhere totally missed that the template-protected is not semi-protection. Odd ... the first one I did, was a semi-protected. And then I thought I had done it incorrectly and changed it to template-protected. One thing is for sure, I'm not likely to forget this lesson on any other semi-protection requests for templates. Thanks for your patience in explaining this. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There indeed is no reason to protect documentation pages, in general. I am a bit surprised an admin wouldn't know this. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Random note: Null Bot is actually back alive, as of a couple weeks ago. And on the Tools server, which should prevent future significant outages. My apologies for the prolonged downtime. --joe decker^talk 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Hey, Red, you seem like a reasonably neutral party with respect to hyphens. So would you like to draft a neutral RFC about hyphenating narrow-gauge when used as an adjective? I asked Bermicourt to do it with me, but he has been offline for about 4 days, so maybe he's not available. And where should this be, to get good exposure? And/or suggest who else I should ask to help. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Drafting an RFC

See my draft at User:Dicklyon/rfc#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge. I invite anyone who wants to help make it a neutral question and productive discussion to make tweaks there, or make suggestions, or start your own alternative proposal. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not getting much feedback from you or anyone, so may go ahead with this in a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I got your email. I do not discuss Wikipedia matters off-wiki, except at organised meetups or Wikimania events. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Village Pump RFC

Because of your input on previous discussions, I wanted to bring your attention to a discussion I have started at the Village Pump regarding the use of foreign languages in templates. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I'll become aware of this in about two minutes, since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines is on my watchlist and is scheduled to be updated at 20:01 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Sorry. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There you go. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts to my edits

What—in your London-centric view of the world—makes you think that everyone who types in Waterloo rail(way) station wants the London Waterloo station page? Useddenim (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim: It's an unavoidable side-effect of reverting several edits made to redirects by Rm2033 (talk · contribs) back to their last stable versions - for example, Waterloo rail station and Waterloo railway station had both been unchanged since 09:04, 22 February 2008. If Rm2033, yourself or indeed anybody wishes that these long-standing redirects should be repurposed after such a long time, the proper course of action is to file a WP:RFD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone was going to pay attention to Rm2033 (talk · contribs). It looks like the work of a WP:SOCK, but not in a terribly disruptive manner (altho’ I don’t think ‘AEC Routemaster’ is necessarily more descriptive nor accurate than ‘Routemaster bus’, depending upon context). Useddenim (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Bogie#Railway

Thank you for noticing and reverting my mistake. Wikipedia depends upon editors and administrators like you. Please take another look at the article. I hope I got it right this time. I will watch this spot, in case you decide to respond. Thanks again. Comfr (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The Queen Album

Apparently it's all on Youtube. Here's a sample. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)