This is an archive of past discussions about User:Redrose64. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
BR class 73
Not sure how this works and found this by chance....
My so called 'original research' comes from my railway career of over forty years working on British Rail's Southern Region including at Stewart's Lane depot (Battersea) where the class 73 locomotives were based for most of their working lives. Forgive me for sounding rude but much railway information on your website is taken from books (often containing errors) so if this direct industry-knowledge isn't good enough then I shall stop trying to assist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiptean (talk • contribs) 21:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I have amended /corrected many of your pages on SR emu stock being one of the UK's leading experts on these!
Since placing this I notice my class 73 efforts have been in vain and my information removed.
I no longer feel able to contribute to a site where essentially first-hand knowledge on a subject is against Wikipedia's policies!
Hi Caiptean. Believe me, the errors in Wikipedia relating to railways grate on me too. However, one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is no original research - what exists on Wikipedia must have been published elsewhere. We want our information be verifiable, and the best way for something to be verifiable is for it to be cited to a published source, which the user can then check and determine whether it supports the claim made.
To be honest, it boils down to bad actors. There are malicious people who would insert clearly false claims without legitimate basis, and claim that they in fact knew that Saddam Hussein was the fourth member of Busted. While you may be authoritative on the subject, and truthful, unfortunately there is no way for a user to be able to check whether your lived experience matches what you wrote here.
Wikipedia welcomes contributors from all walks of life, and those with experience are certainly valuable. If you believe something which is sourced is wrong then raise it on the talk page and explain why. Perhaps others with access to reference materials will be able to find sources to back your position. But a user's personal experience alone is not a reliable source. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Whilst I appreciate your concerns this is first-hand knowledge. I was there - forty years in the railway industry working with class 73 locomotives and other classes!
Sorry, but if first-hand knowledge isn't good enough then I cannot contribute and find the wasting of my time most disrespectful.
@Caiptean: I don't know what "A17 of GDPR" is. But, before you clicked the Publish changes button, you were presented with some notices, two of these are relevant - they are
By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
It's article 17 of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, which doesn't apply here; it refers to the right to demand organisations remove your personal data from their database if they have no legitimate reason to hold on to it. (Although neither Wikipedia nor—presumably—Caiptean are in the EU, when it comes to data protection firms tend to comply regardless of where they're based.) Since we're not retaining any personal data here, it isn't relevant. ‑ Iridescent23:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Sirs,
Since you are taking a confrontational stance by throwing terms and conditions at me I have no option but to respond in same. The personal data you hold is my e-mail address and username; the regulations are clear on this and do apply to Wikipedia as you operate in the UK and EU.
In terms of past non-personal information-for-others changes made on your Website these were done in good faith to assist others and I'm not seeking to have these altered nor have I asked you to do so. That you seem to think otherwise suggests you do not understand some of us have tried to support you for the good of all.
May I suggest you read up on GDPR as your responses suggest Wikipedia has not covered it accurately or sufficiently enough in its own pages. I am conversant with the regulations.
Under GDPR you will need to ensure personal data such as e-mail address and username (used elsewhere) are erased in order to comply with GDPR. You may wish to do this by simply change these to something that does not relate to me. Please note erase means just that including from servers and backups; not just hide or remove.
Under GDPR permissions-to-engage are no longer absolute and an organisation cannot hide
behind an 'irrevocable-permission' clause; GDPR specifically removes this clause as soon as I revoked permission (which I have now done and the compliance time-clock is ticking).
As already stated, your website operates in the UK and EU so GDPR does apply and the penalties for non-compliance are significant (based on global turnover). Remember, it costs me nothing to submit a complaint of non-compliance with the UK's Information Commissioner's Office.
Accordingly please will you now confirm my e-mail address and username will be erased?
Should you choose not to confirm this then my default response will be an assumption of non-compliance with GDPR leading to escalation. Having taken on several large companies (including the UK's BBC - similar scenario) I will treat it as recreational.
Caiptean, please do not issue legal threats against users. Per Wikipedia:No legal threats, if you have a legal issue with Wikipedia then you should contact the Wikimedia foundation. Users such as myself or Redrose are volunteers, and have no access to user information. I will say I find it remarkable that Wikipedia doesn't have a go-to page on GDPR, there's no way this is even an uncommon argument. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Sir,
Deletions and previous confrontational posts were made by 'users' acting on behalf of Wikipedia (i.e. Agents under Wikipedia's instruction); my response is to Wikipedia albeit through these individual Agents who were clearly enforcing Wikipedia's position. As they are demonstrable Agents of Wikipedia my A17 GDPR notice has been given and it is for these Agents to escalate within the Wikipedia organisation if it is outside their remit.
My 'posts' are communication of a simple lawful request to those Agents acting on behalf of Wikipedia for erasure under A17 GDPR and (from their responses) it appeared necessary to advice Wikipedia of it obligations and what may happen should Wikipedia choose not to comply with the legislative requirements of GDPR. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is trying to brand this advice as 'threats' where none is implied or intended (as a consequence I'm presuming this engagement is with US-based Agents- that is not UK). Indeed I had assumed a 'well-informed' organisation would have had processes and procedures in place for its Agents to follow in such circumstances.
Will you please confirm (or ensure arrangement) to erasure of my e-mail address and username (as required under A17 of GDPR) so this unhappy situation can be drawn to an immediate close in order to prevent escalation and any further misunderstandings by anyone as it is now causing me distress?
Once Wikipedia has confirmed compliance with my A17 GDPR erasure-request this matter can be closed without further need for contact. It is both our interests to do this and I hope you can enable this to take place.
With the latest change to the above not appearing I have additionally contacted info@wikimedia.org with my A17 GDPR requestand thank you for this link. Hopefully this matter can now be closed.
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.43.132 (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
This just appeared on my notifications. I have seriously have no idea who you two are on about. I have no relation or any associations with the TarzanBoy24 guy. I'm from Batley West Yorkshire. My IP is under Liverpool. So I no idea who this donkey your talking about is. Localities are similar? Half my edits are in Yorkshire and Cheshire even Wales. Not just these so called localities. So if I'm supposedly this guy I'm not then you could say that about the other non registered members or anonymous ips. I dont appreciate accusations. I bid you a good day. RailwayJG (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I understand your concerns I really do. The reason I edited Potteries was someone used a simulator as a reliable source. I play Train Simulator and many old lines like Woodhead Line and Dorset and Somerset Lines were added as dlc recreations. But imo a dlc isn't a reliable source. I'm sorry this guy caused you problems and edits as you say look similar. I never saw the edits by this guy but I can assure you. I have no relations or associations with this guy. I'm as stated from Batley no idea where he was from but I cannot get enough of editing West Yorkshire and Cheshire pages. Tend to find interesting facts about the history. Anyway apologies and no hard feelings? RailwayJG (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
After each pair of closing braces, there's a character which shows in my browser (Opera) as a little box; that's a dead giveaway for an unusual character that's not widely supported. I don't know what Stephen lee kh (talk·contribs) was intending it to be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
It displays in Firefox as a slightly elongated / - when I saw it I assumed it was space slash space, but it does seem to in fact be a single character. Very odd. I'll replace it with commas. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
U+FF0F FULLWIDTH SOLIDUS. A handy tool for stuff like this is https://r12a.github.io/app-conversion/. Paste the character(s) of interest into the blue-gray Characters box and then click the View in UniView button.
This character is appropriate in CKJ CJK script but not, methinks, in Latin script.
I don't know about forbidden. The Unicode CJK Unified Ideographs (cjk not ckj) range from U+4E00 to U+9FFC; most of the CJK Unified Ideographs Extensions are in U+2xxxx and into U+3xxxx. Here is the Unicode chart that holds U+FF0F.
1. I foolishly decided to manually archive my current talk page. It's been so long since the last time that I have forgotten how I did it, and now I'm confused. I came across your name while trying to re-learn how to do it. Can you help, please?
2. I noticed from your current talk page that you are interested in railways. Does your interest extend to the London Underground? If so, I wonder if you could confirm or deny my suspicions as expressed in There's No Business... (1994 film). Or maybe there's someone else who might be able to help. PS The current page of my wall calendar depicts DR 18 201. PPS I think I got this one right. PPS This may be a bit small for you.
JS Wikibrowser is a valuable tool but it can be challenging from time to time. I work on simple things like misspelling and miscapitalization. Is it possible to modify the script so that it ignores (skips) correcting the names of image files; i.e., a contiguous sequence of words enclosed in brackets, begin with File:, Image: and or end with any of the following (in case some templates don't use the file/image prefix): .png, .gif, .jpg, .jpeg, .xcf, .pdf, .mid, .ogg, .ogv, .svg, .djvu, .tiff, .tif, .oga ????
Can this be done without having to go through the long process? As is, the script is vulnerable to the occasional inadvertent human error so if that modification can be made, it will save a great deal of volunteer time and even avoid frustration to those who have to fix the errors.
If not, where do we go to add it to the Community Wishlist, provided it is a feasible request, of course.
@Atsme: I don't know why you're asking me ... this is well outside my area. Try WP:VPT. However, the community wishlist is here, but it's been closed for several months now. You will need to wait until about October for the next one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) is more complicated: Anthony Appleyard (talk·contribs) has been doing some page moves, and somehow the prot levels have got out of step with the pp templates. At 19:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC) it was set by Xaosflux (talk·contribs) to [Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) with an edit summary of "highly visible, being linked in from WMF blogs as well", these justifying a {{pp-30-500}}; but it looks like Anthony Appleyard reduced the edit prot to semi and lifted the move prot at the same time. So if those prot settings are correct, the presence of {{pp-move-indef}} - added yesterday by Tbhotch (talk·contribs) - is incorrect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the research and fix. I was spinning around trying to untangle all that was going on with the second one. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk16:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I was correcting the number of seats in each car, but why did you choose to revert it? And without an explanation? C2A (About | Call | Edits) 19:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Redrose64,
I'm not a regular editor of Wikipedia, so I've only just seen your removal two and a half years ago of my edit.
[1]
Nothing is remarkable about a Blog being maintained over 10 years, as you say. However, it was 20 years then (now 22.5 years) so I can't help feeling your dismissal of this very early web log, still going today and updated usually more than once a week continuously in that time, is somewhat arbitrary, especially given your inaccurate reason for dismissing a web log which started in October 1997. Or maybe there are indeed loads of others started at that time, which are still going today, maintained by a human editor rather than an automated way.
[2]
Maybe you'd consider re-inserting some of what I'd written?
Regards,
Richard
Richardsalmon (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The source that you provided was the blog itself. This is inadmissible, since it not only fails WP:PRIMARY but also WP:SPS. If you want to establish that this particular blog is significant in some way (whether because of longevity or otherwise), you need to find an independent reliable source that explicitly supports your claim. Otherwise we (that is, the community, not just myself) will assume that you are simply trying to spam the blog of an organisation that you are connected with - and that is prohibited, see WP:NOTPROMO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Purpose of UK road template
Hello, I have recently seen on some of my recent edits you have undone my additions of the UK road template to various road numbers on the rail diagrams. I am sorry if I have been using these in error. I am unsure of where they are to be used other than the rail templates, which is what I assumed they were used for originally. Some older diagrams have included them for years (e.g. [3] these templates on the Maidstone line RDT were added years ago, and I assume you thought I added them in my most recent edit when removing them). The template page seems to have no info on their usage. I have been away from the Wikipedia rail diagram scene for a long time, so could you explain to me if something has changed regarding their usage and what they are intended to be used for? Nathan A RF (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The WP:RDT system allows transport route diagrams to be drawn. These routes might be roads, for which road numbers shown in the form of road signs can be entirely appropriate; but for other transport modes, such as rail routes, they are distracting and give undue prominence to what is merely a minor feature. This has been discussed before, several times; I draw your attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 35#Road numbers in RDTs in particular. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The edit concerned is this one, for which I most certainly didn't rollback, either proper WP:ROLLBACK or Twinkle's pseudo-rollback. Such misuse is a disciplinary offence.
Anyway, despite the name of the parent category, we categorise by owning company, and have done for at least the eleven years that I've been involved. Category:Former Longmoor Military Railway stations is for stations that were actually owned by the LMR. If we categorised by the companies that served the station, it would get unnecessarily complicated for stations like Carlisle Citadel, Manchester Piccadilly and York. How far would we go? Would we, for instance, categorise Penzance as a former North British Railway station, or Aberdeen as a former Great Western Railway station? Yet there was a service that ran daily from Aberdeen to Penzance and vice versa, using coaches of both those companies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't really understand your first paragraph, as the edit you call out clearly shows you undoing my revision. But leave that be, it isn't really the point.
If, as you say we have been categorising by owner for the last 11 years, surely we should by now have renamed the parent category. It is very easy to write 'we', but if that wasn't obvious to me, somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for several years longer than eleven, how on earth is it going to be clear to a newbie. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
My edit shows "(Tag: Undo)", and Undos are not rollbacks. There is nothing in my edit to indicate that it was a rollback. A rollback does not allow any edit summary other than a default, so I wouldn't have been able to enter "no it was a LSWR station, the LMR just had running powers" into the edit summary. Compare this edit, which is clearly tagged as a rollback.
Well you learn something every day. I've seen loads of edit comments like that edit, but it never once crossed my mind that they were anything other than the result of somebody using the undo button and not providing a comment, so I've always used the words rollback and undo as synonymous. As I'm not an admin or (apparently) a rollbacker, I've never seen the rollback button and didn't know it existed. Sorry for the confusion. As for whether I want to kick off a CFR, I think I'll sleep on that. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
One new one
Hello R. Sumer is now in the cat. I'm afraid I get all turned around when those multiple protection and/or resets are applied. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk14:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Good deal. I always appreciate your help and now I have to add my thanks for your patience as I know that you've told me how to fix some of these before. In this case does this edit summary mean that the PC protection was removed? I've seen resets of PC before where a null edit fixed things but, as you've shown, that wouldn't have worked here. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk18:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is another Module talk:Message box/testcases was in the cat. In trying to deal with the fact that it is a redirect I made this edit which did clear it out of the cat but that was reversed by SD0001 who showed me a different log to look at in this thread User talk:SD0001#Weirdness. The page has returned to the cat so I obviously don't know what is going on. Any edits and explanations that you can provide will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk20:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
now I understand why the displayed topicon at {{L}} had a different mouse-hover-text than specified on the template page. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe
Hello R. As you know I saw your mention in the edit summary. I know I didn't blank anything when I made this edit. Since the time stamps are the same I'm guessing that it was one of those edit conflicts that can happen at the various notice boards. I'm pretty sure that we used to get the edit conflict stoppage like we do when working on articles but it has to have been nine years (at least) that this glitch started happening. I'm not complaining as I always appreciate your follow up on things like this. I just didn't want you to think I had gone off the rails :-) Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk23:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed how far away the two threads are from each other. As I only was only editing in that specific thread it has gotta be that glitch. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk23:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Cancelling out my edits
Why do you keep deleting my edits? I was going to message you in my own time about Waterbeach and Lakenheath stations, but now this has really taken the biscuit.
Waterbeach: The reason I added the information about the Breckland Line services passing through the station is because it is already served by other Greater Anglia services, albeit infrequently. I didn't bother to put in the fact that Cross Country trains pass through because those trains don't stop there anyway, so that would have been meaningless.
Lakenheath: Some people like a bit of trivia. I certainly do, and I think it's relevant given the fact that Breckland Line trains are timetabled to stop at stations in four different counties at weekends.
Reedham: That wikitable was already there - I was just updating it. Some but not all of the stations' wiki pages have a table. That actually took me about 5-10 minutes to update and you've taken just a few seconds to get rid of it all - and I stayed up late to edit the page despite having to get up early for work today. Why don't you just get rid of all of them then to save me the hassle?
To summarise, if the information I provide is not incorrect or not too detailed then just leave it on the site. I hope I won't have to send this kind of message again.
Furthermore, I noticed you undid my revision of the station name change because, as you wrote, "Don't make people guess the name of the station."
First of all, there's already a description about the Norfolk suffix and a link to its south London namesake in the page's opening paragraph. So the reader won't need to guess if they've already got that far.
Second, what exactly would they need to guess? If there's two stations with the same name then the answer is already there! And like I've already said, there's a description about the name change and a link to the other station in the opening paragraph.
Also, going back to my initial point, the only other non-terminus station on the Wherry Lines that has a wikitable is Brundall as it, just like Reedham station, is a junction. That is why the wikitable on the Reedham station page was there in the first place. Gregwholikestrains (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't "keep deleting" your edits; in fact, I have never deleted any of your edits. The last edit that I deleted was this one, almost two weeks ago, and (unless you were logged out at the time) wasn't made by you.
Waterbeach: this is unsourced, and of interest only to trainspotters. It is simply not worth mentioning.
Lakenheath: this is unsourced, and of interest only to geography nerds. You wrote "I added a little bit of trivia" and that in itself is a red flag.
Reedham: You made eight consecutive edits. Most of that is still there: the table of services isn't - it was agreed some years ago that details of the stopping patterns and types of rolling stock do not belong in the articles for stations, but may be included in an article for the line or train operating company if sourced. The lead section of an article should summarise the main body of the article; so if a station is mentioned in the lead, it should also be mentioned in the body. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that a different RfC was started; it looks like further options were proposed. RfCs are not rigid setups for saying "there are two options, vote for one or the other, but do not suggest anything else" - RfCs, by their very nature, are requests for comments, and that has a very broad scope. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Paine 21:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an AwesomeHoliday and a HappyNewYear, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Paine 15:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear Redrose64, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Template talk:WikiProject Biography
Hi Redrose64, quick message. On Template talk:WikiProject Biography, I removed the category not because I had been lazy and just not fixed the issue, I just hadn't realised that it might have been there because someone had posted a link to it in the talk. I had assumed it was just a one-time problem with the actual template itself at the top of the talk page, and so I could fix that by removing the category. I used hot cat, so didn't actually see what I had deleted. I should have checked changes before pressing to save my edit. I apologise, I just wanted to clear any misunderstanding. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke. —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)21:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to hoping your holiday time is wonderful and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old. CHEERS!
RailwayJG, all the links added by that IP appear to be links to the ORR stats page.
A video is perfectly acceptable as a source in principle, same as a photo, but it depends what it is being used to verify. If your video is someone talking, then they need to pass WP:RS, so blogs and such are out. Videos of facilities and such I would think are perfectly acceptable, if you're just using the video as a visual source, not relying on what the videographer says. That said I'm not an expert in these matters and tend to be more liberal about what is acceptable as a source. I should point out that in your edit here, the video was not being used as a citation. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? That's twice now you've seen fit to revert my attempt to clean up an issue from the VPT board that got solved in a few hours by a bot not subject to the normal API limits. The board has exactly zero guideline on closing down a resolved issue, but you've now seen fit to revert my doing so twice. What is your endgame that has you so obsessed with leaving a simple workaround out to clog up an already unwieldy noticeboard? VanIsaacWScont21:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
First, OneClickArchiver does not coexist happily with bot archiving - in this case, it moved to a new archive page when the current one, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 180 was at 349,283 bytes, way short of its capacity of 524,288 bytes.
Second, at boards like WP:ANI, which attract a lot of "drama", we have found that two sides in opposition can continue to pile on after the issue has been resolved, so we use tag pairs like {{atop}}/{{abot}} to discourage further mudslinging. But at boards like WP:VPT we don't want to stifle the addition of further constructive comments and advice: the issue may have been resolved, so we use {{resolved}} to indicate that people need not devote hours into investigating. But somebody may know of a better (shorter/easier/more efficient) way of fixing it, so we leave discussions open until the archiving bot ships them out - this means that should people look in the archives in a year or two, they can see several other people's experiences, what they did about it, etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Then that needs to be on the board's instructions for how to close an issue - oh wait, there's exactly jack squat about how to close an issue on that noticeboard. Have you tried actually putting forward something along those lines instead of jumping in like you WP:OWN the place every time someone tries to close their resolved issues? In the meantime, maybe you should just trust experienced editors in how they clean up after themselves, even if you'd do it differently. VanIsaacWScont22:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't have any advice on how to close an issue because we don't close issues at VPT. They remain open until they become inactive (presently defined as no comments for six days), at which point the bot archives the thread. Look through the archives: how many threads do you find that are formally closed? But you will find plenty that were marked as {{resolved}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
You don't WP:OWN that noticeboard, and just because YOU don't happen to do something doesn't mean it is wrong to do so. Please learn to respect other editors' variations from your personal practices from here on. VanIsaacWScont19:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't you see that by doing this you are effectively saying "nobody else is allowed to comment here, because I WP:OWN this thread"? If you don't want details of your userspace plastered on a highly-trafficked noticeboard, don't put it there in the first place. You may have redacted it, but anybody can look at the page history to see what was there before. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The visibility of the main page of a noticeboard and the archive are different by orders of magnitude, and you are smart enough to know that. The lack of a stated policy on archiving, leaving me the freedom to reduce its visibility upon resolution is precisely the condition under which I felt comfortable posting there in the first place. Again, I ask you to please learn to respect that just because you don't do something a particular way does not mean it is improper to do it that way. VanIsaacWScont19:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Vanisaac, the issue isn't that you want to do things one way that goes against how Redrose64 does things, the issue is that you want to do it one way that goes against how every other person on that noticeboard does things. Wikipedia operates on consensus, not on "if I haven't been explicitly told not to do something that means I can do what I like no matter how many other people it inconveniences". By pushing this, you're just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. ‑ Iridescent20:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think my standing up for the right of editors to use standard noticeboard procedures to reduce the visibility of their requests for help is disruptive. Disruption is not my intention, correction of the harmful actions and attitudes of this particular admin is. VanIsaacWScont21:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
So it is. It's also the only place where Village Pumps are mentioned (by name). I'd been hoping to keep the change small, but... Hmmm. It will need more thinking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
apologies
i apologize about the problem i did on dark phoenix talk page's rfc. it was my first rfc and i messed up on the original submission (first a typo that i know see can be fixed on the fly and then based on feedback needing to have multiple options).
The last undo was done by another editor who thought there had been an older rfc (not because of my submissions) but because of discussion above the rfc. So that's why there was yet another resubmit.
Something missing from that info is what one is to do if there is an error. I just re-read the instructions, and I did as the instructions said which was to end the rfc by removing the tag and restart by readding the template. The first error I made I still don't see clearly in the directions which is that what gets posted on the rfc page is between the the rfc template and the 4 tilda's so that might be a good addition. If the instructions also stated that any changes made between the rfc template and the signature are made that they will update the rfc page would have prevented me closing and restarting because i thought the rfc page was static. And again on the last one was because another user believe prior talk page discussion was a rfc and he closed it so i had to restart it.
Was there a different way i should have closed and restarted it because from what I'm reading in the instructions i followed the guidance? I'm not sure if you're the rfc guru, but if you are, if there was like a reference to you on the page for in case of emergency break glass and message you, i would have contacted you at the first error.ToeFungii (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64, would you take a look at Dark Phoenix Talk Page to see if you think closing the rfc might be warranted? At this point all comments are one-sided. I'd appreciate your guidance. TY (On the off chance you think it would be, would you put here how you think I should close it-obviously not applicable if you don't think it should be closed. ToeFungii (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
i had read on the rfc page that "until enough comment" which i took to mean if all comments were aligned. But i'd rather just leave open so that anyone can weigh in especially with this being the weekend and i'd guess there may be more. Thx. ToeFungii (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Whilst I recognise that the Railway Magazine is a good source of information but occasionally they have misprints. An issue in January 1960 cannot quote that the line closed in December 1960. That is nearly a year before it closed... An obvious error somewhere...!!! That is why I have quoted elsewhere which seems to match what it is written in the article. Steamybrian2 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello. You reverted my edit here [5]. The reason I archived this is because the discussion was closed by me [6]. Now I am trying to close the WP:AN listing with a |done=yes in the initiated tag (like you and the instructions say) and it doesn't seem to do anything or make any difference [7]. I tried it without the date and nothing happened in the preview window.
I tried it with the date and in the preview and then publishing the change - again nothing happened. I think the instructions need to be clarified in the AN blurb at the top of the page. The "done" did work, as you can see from my last diff. Maybe you can tell me what I am not doing correctly. In any case, I am undoing my last edit. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64, thank you for keeping a watchful eye on the requests for comments, and for catching all of the technical issues that arise from everyone's mistakes, including mine. Your attention to detail makes us all better editors. — Newslingertalk11:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you I have all the listings (such as WP:RFC/MEDIA) on my watchlist; and when a new RfC arrives in one of them, I first make sure that it isn't an empty entry. Then I click the link to make sure that it ends up at the right place. In this case, the listing said one thing:
but the RfC reached by clicking the link said another:
Which of the following best describes the reliability of the Media Research Center and its various arms (CNSNews, Newsbusters, MRCTV)?
When this happens, either of two things are likely causes. One is that the RfC statement has been altered; the other is that there are duplicate |rfcid= values. Checking the page history reveals which one occurred. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
From Smalljim
OK so I made a hash of the RfCs. Lobsterthermidor is a very prolific editor with over 630 articles to his name [8], most of which (by extrapolation from those I've reviewed) have problems of non-compliance with our policies and guidelines. Particular problems are original research, very poor referencing, failure to abide by MOS... Also edit warring, incivility, disdain for the community. I'm rather a WP:OGRE so I've been chipping away at him, on and off, since 2012. He's hardly improved in 8 years. WP:CIR? I made a particularly poor attempt at AN/I in 2016. I'm having another go now. I wouldn't bother, but he's degrading the quality of WP in a very insidious way - in hundreds of low importance articles that no-one reviews in any depth. Only when he tries the same actions in high profile articles does anyone notice.
Of course it would be easy if everything he did was bad, but it isn't - he has also added value to WP over the years (especially images), but separating the good from the bad (especially the OR) is a difficult and thankless task - he doesn't take advice and continues regardless. Perhaps I should just shrug, say "who cares?", hand in the bit and fully retire. —SMALLJIM21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I seriously think that would be a good idea. Clearly something is seriously amiss with this person's behaviour. The stalking has to end. Been going on since before 2013. This person (to whom this comment is not addressed) has been warned by Admin Kim Dent-Brown: The consensus appears to be that you should both go away, act your age, leave one another alone and get on with editing. If I can add a personal opinion - you both Smalljim and Lobsterthermidor behaved poorly, each mirroring the other in haughty disdain of the other. You are each to blame for the other's attitude to you, which you have stoked by your own actions. The solution is in your own hands. I predict that in fact you are each so convinced of the other's wrongness that you will each wait for the pther to change, nothing will happen and we'll end up here gain some time sooner or later. Please prove me wrong. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:26, 9 November 2013 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:Lobsterthermidor[9]. He has taken no notice of it and continues to pursue my contributions obsessively. A review of his contributions since pretty much the start of March will show that about 99% of his edits have concerned reverting or amending my contributions on a wide range of topics across the project. That's 2 1/2 months entirely devoted to chasing me. It's totally intolerable. His activity on WP has degenerated from being a productive Admin to being an obsessive stalker of myself. He has done virtually no admin work during that period, 99% of his keystrokes are devoted to chasing me down, chastising me over XYZ WP regulation, and giving me a masterclass. I can now understand better what's going on in his WP career - he links to "fully retire" above, which states "As of 2019 I haven't been very active on Wikipedia for a few years now. It no longer feels like the exciting place for an editor/administrator that it once was." Well to me (alone) it certainly seems he has been extremely active, obsessively active. His entire WP career (sorry I'm exaggerating, just 99% of it) is now devoted to reverting and amending my work.
I am following Kim's advice (have been doing so since 2013) and I try to ignore it and this person, but it's creeping me out big time. I have never edited a single one of his own contributions since 2013 when I had the misfortune to cross his path in editing one of his articles. Since then he has pursued my work with an unbalanced fury. It's making me want to give up WP, but I won't, I retired twice in 2013 due to his hounding but came back, it is clearly a case of stalking, or as we now call it "hounding", which sounds nice and cuddly and inoffensive, but it's not. It's sheer hell being subjected to this level of psychological abuse. Can someone please help. Looks like he's trying to get me banned from WP for "Wikipedia:Competence is required" and he says he's "having another go now", which means a further period of sustained hounding from him. I've been here for over 10 years, have contributed 630 articles. And now apparently I'm being accused of incompetence. Because I used ampersands in a heading (my latest "offense" and put a full stop in the wrong place in a ref (see possibly his most absurd post ever to my talk page - one of very very many over the years). This post is in pursuance of my right of reply to this seemingly secret attempt at canvassing against me. If this person wishes to make a complaint against me it should be done at the appropriate public noticeboard - and I should be notified - which I was not. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
PS This response by this person should surely have been made at Talk:Manor of Scadbury, not "in secret" here? WP is supposed to be a transparent and open site. If this person believes "OK so I made a hash of the RfCs" (as he states above) he should comment to that effect on the talk page of the article, not here "in private", with no link whatsoever to the matter concerned. This concerns myself as the other editor concerned, it should not be down to my detective work to track down to here the status of the rfc.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Smalljim and Lobsterthermidor: Discussions about the content of an article don't belong here but at the talk page for the article concerned. If the problem is with my behaviour, you may discuss that here, but you should not discuss each others conduct. There are other venues for that, such as one of your user talk pages. If you really must take it outside there is WP:DRR or one of the WP:AN boards. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
It is kind of you to mention this SN but it I've rubbed too many people the wrong way over the years to pass. I'm just too old to survive this :-) P.S. I did want to link to the scene from Barry Lyndon but could only find the top pic here. Thanks again for the thought. MarnetteD|Talk15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the phrase He ran the gauntlet take on an extra-ominous tone when said in a heavy north-European accent :) serial #15:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my mistakes regarding the NDP talk page rfc request. These are genuine mistakes; I'm not making them intentionally. I very rarely use rfc and I'm still not used to it. I attempted to add a new rfc now I have put a shorter description at the top of the talk page subsection. I feel the other information should be included, especially the citations used to reason my claim. However, I can't put that much information in an rfc request, but I feel it’s needed. So I have spaced this further down. I have attempted to change the section at the top to a simple one line. Please, if you see where I am going / have gone wrong, please jus fix it for me, as you will know where I have gone wrong and what to do about it much better than myself. Many thanks. Helper201 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I've been trying to following this. Why is the description still not showing up on the rfc page now I have changed it to a one line description? The reason I got rid of the old rfcid was to attempt to fix this now I've shortened it to one line. Helper201 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You can just close those out. I am getting attacked by other editors. No need for that by any editor. So just close them out and I apologize for the opening of them so fast. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up20:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64 has eaten your {{subst:WikiLove-cupcake}}! The cupcake made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:WikiLove-cupcake}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cupcakes by adding {{subst:WikiLove-cupcake}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks. Looks like you did. I'm guessing that lag between adding the noinclude and the category clearing itself was in play here. Have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk18:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm half-way through two weeks paid holiday, I booked it before the COVID-19 thing kicked off. Right now I should be eating dinner and drinking beer with my relatives in a private-hire coach on the East Lancashire Railway, but we had to cancel that. My "holiday" has now turned into a kind of dry run to see if I can manage to self-isolate for a week or two if I do catch the plague. Yes, Philafrenzy, this is why I've whizzed past you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I know your frustration R. My trips to the Cincinnati and Santa Fe operas this summer have both been cancelled. Mind you I'd rather everyone stay safe so that future seasons can take place. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk20:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
My apologies – I didn't realize the pages were transcluded. Thanks, Redrose64, for adding the necessary tags. Best, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 21:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Would there be any way to fix {{Pp}} itself so that it'd only display on the initial page and not any transcluded page? It'd most likely have to involve solving the same inclusion control nesting problem I recently asked about at the VPT. {{u|Sdkb}}talk09:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You can only control transclusion in two scopes: in the page where the code actually exists, and in transcluding pages (to any level). You can't be selective about how deep the transclusion is; otherwise, we'd have found a solution for the navbox v-t-e problem some time ago. I guess that you don't know of this... basically, the vast majority of navboxes have some little links (v-t-e) at top left, but for these to work properly (or at all), the navbox has to be told its own name - like this. What is really needed is for the {{navbox}} template to work that out for itself, but if it tries, what it actually gets is the ultimate name of the article using the navbox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the background info; that's interesting. If there are other use cases beyond those, perhaps a software change could be introduced at some point. It doesn't seem like the highest-priority task, but maybe launch a phab? Or is it something that even they wouldn't be able to fix without fundamental changes to HTML? (please use {{ping|Sdkb}} on reply) {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the investigation. Hopefully your ping will get them to explain and make the necessary fix. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk21:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know the archive bot would rather do nothing than start another archive page. I assume this is because the counter > 1. (I guess I assumed that the bot would still archive and then we would realize something was wrong when it started a new series of pages)
Anyhoo - good work: not only did you teach me how to fish, I noticed you also caught the fish [10] yourself.
The counter has nothing to do with it, the bot will only archive to a direct subpage - but if that subpage isn't named in the |archive= parameter of the config, it fails silently. It's to prevent the mess that would ensue if a vandal alters |archive=. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I realize now the cause was that the old archive parameter, while named, was no longer a direct subpage (since the namespace had changed). Maybe that's what you said. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Why did you revise my edit at Wikipedia:Transclusion
Wikipedia:Transclusion
Not necessarily against it, but either way, would be useful to know your reasoning, would help to avoid my doing the same kind of thing again.
As a resident of Rochester I got a consultation leaflet through the door. The crux of it is that the freight line to Isle of Grain is being opened to passengers who will get a link to the HS1- at Gravesend and a new service possibly to Victoria. They invite those of us interested in registering for news letters at medway.gov.uk/futurehoo and medway.gov.uk/regeneration. Thought you may like to watch this. It is under Housing Infrastructure Fund and a bit of struggle to locate the button. ClemRutter (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't hold your breath; they've literally announced the proposed reopening of the Hundred of Hoo Railway every couple of years since the 1970s (it's even been seriously considered for upgrading to full-speed HS1 standards as part of the various estuary airport proposals). There are also long-standing proposals for a Crossrail extension (the space north of Hoo Junction, where the freight line branches off from the existing passenger line, is being held as the site for a proposed Crossrail megadepot should HS2 turf them out of the existing depot at Old Oak Common), which make a certain sense if the aim is to turn the Hoo Peninsula into a London dormitory suburb whose taxes will in turn fund Medway council. ‑ Iridescent23:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
West Midlands Trains
I noticed that you reverted an edit on West Midlands Trains by 78.145.52.208. The edit included the restoration of through service indications (I-IV, A-E) on the services table, which had been deleted earlier by the same user probably by mistake.
Could you please explain why you reverted the edit and also restore the indicators? Thank you.--YTRK (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
What kind of problems, sorry? The current table doesn't make sense at all without the markers.--YTRK (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
For a start, miscounted rowspans and colspans; other superfluous markup. Also, linking to Sprinter which is a disambiguation page instead of Sprinter, which although redirected, at least ends up in the right place. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The rowspans and colspans were actually fine. That is, that format may not have been the best (not sure Wikipedia needs to be that specific about the services), but it made sense. Right now, this part makes no sense at all because you deleted the column which had the Roman numerals / alphabets.
Services running to/from Birmingham New Street are combined, which gives through services between London (as above) and Rugeley/Liverpool/Crewe (as below).
Northbound services are combined as follows:
I → A;
II → B and E (dividing at Birmingham New Street);
III → C;
IV → D.
Southbound services are combined as follows:
A → II;
B → IV (operated by West Midlands Railway);
C → I;
D and E → III (attaching at Birmingham New Street).
The revert also included the combination of the "I", "II", and "III", "A" and "B", and "C" and "D", which I must admit I quite like since it made that table much simpler, but even so, the confusion likely caused on the combination of services going through Birmingham New Street cannot be overlooked.
I would therefore much appreciate if you could either revert your revert (and fix the link separately) or edit it again to clear the situation on the combinations. This is just a hunch, but I have a feeling 78.145.52.208 tried to change how the combinations are described but gave up and restoring the article to it's original state. (There's no difference between the revision right before 78.145.52.208's first edit on the article and his/her last revision.) I see that your edits were reverted too (by mistake I suppose) in his/her last revision, but you needn't have reverted the whole thing.--YTRK (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that you check the rowspans at Past fleet very carefully.
As to the I/II/A/B etc. services - do we really need this? There is a tendency for some people - particularly IPs - to try and make Wikipedia some kind of railway timetable journey planner. This is not our purpose. We should direct people to the website of the TOC if they want to know details of the service. If I want to travel from Tring to Canley, I should not be planning my journey on the basis that Wikipedia says that a I train will take me there but there are no direct returns. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd missed that one, but still, that's not a legitimate reason to revert the whole thing.
As I've said earlier, I personally agree with you and I don't think the services section needs to be so detailed. However, with the part I quoted yesterday still remaining in the table, I must say the status quo (that is, the revision before 78.145.52.208's edits, which is the same as his/her last edit) was much better (not good yet better) in terms of the services table.
If you can think of a way to better explain how the services are combined (the "how" might be unnecessary; just stating that services continue through Birmingham could be enough), please implement it. If not, please restore the status quo.--YTRK (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
If you're not going to fix it, may I restore the previous version (the services table only, of course)?--YTRK (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I would rather that Wikipedia were not presented as if it were some sort of rail enquiry service. The train operating companies have a duty to ensure that the information that they provide on their websites is accurate; we do not. If we show that level of detail, it carries with it an implied accuracy that may mislead, harming our reputation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
As I've said for multiple times, I agree with you that the table is unnecessarily detailed. (I wouldn't even oppose to the whole services table being deleted provided it's discussed at the talk page beforehand.) However, the current situation is nothing but puzzling to anyone who sees the table. If you're going to change it, do it so that there would be no confusion. If not, don't do anything (=restore it).--YTRK (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I've just found several portal, sandbox etc pages have popped into the cat. This might have something to do with it but, as in the past, I might be wrong. MarnetteD|Talk22:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
For the first one, a quick glance at the history shows that the prot template was added before the page was actually protected, so all that is necessary was a WP:NULLEDIT; and optionally a note to Callanecc (talk·contribs) asking them to add the template after applying the prot to which it relates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@El C: If you add a protection padlock tag (such as {{pp-protected}}) to a template (or in fact to any page that has the slightest possibility of being transcluded elsewhere) it is essential that the padlock tag be wrapped in <noinclude>...</noinclude> so that it is only displayed on the page that is actually protected. Failure to observe this will dump transcluding pages into Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
You seem to know all sorts of things: which is the best place to draw other interested editors' attention to Briantist's activities at turning LU RDTs into detailed track and platform schematics? Currently this affects Template:Jubilee Line RDT and Template:Victoria Line RDT. I could simply revert but have found alerting others first to be productive in the past. Bazza (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It was my understanding/recollection that the archive bot also paid attention to templates like {{done}}. My mistake, I guess. Do you not get the point of the improvement I'm trying to make?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what this is about. If you are following up on some post that I have made, you should at least provide a link to that; but even better would be to place your comment in the same thread, this will keep all relevant matter together and avoid a fragmented discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not. You reverted my edits to archive bot documentation twice, with an edit summary comment; I figured you'd remember, or appreciate better communication than edit summaries allow. If not, so be it; I'm not going to keep discussing discussion. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, so provide a diff link to the edit concerned. I make a lot of edits (not as many as a bot perhaps) but during the past month I have made over 4,000 edits and I can't be expected to remember them all. You do need to be precise about what you write about: there are several bots that perform archiving, and none of them is named either "the archive bot" or "archive bot". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The Londerground
RE: your comment on the London Underground talk page - C2A06 deleted Blythwood's talk page comment, so I reinstated it. I guess wikipedia added that I added it back in? Given that deleting other people comments is clearly a no-no, I thought I was doing the right thing - please let me know if otherwise :) Turini2 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, just wondering why you are using the brief edit description boxes to question others edits? On Congleton Railway Station page you changed nothing from me edit apart from remove one line and then call it 'why?'. This is unhelpful. You then preceded to make a picture I added smaller. I appreciate this is the right thing to do, however calling me out directly instead of just putting 'Made is smaller' is not. The appropriate place to give advice is place like this is here and not on the edit description.
curprev 14:19, 9 June 2020
Eat Your Makeup talk contribs m 6,305 bytes +8
Redrose64 removed a line that was in place for formatting reasons.
undo Tag: Visual edit
curprev 22:31, 8 June 2020
Redrose64 talk contribs 6,297 bytes -72
→Current Services: absolutely *no* need to be that big, misuse of alt text, and don't put credits in captions
undothank
OK, so you added an image. But where on earth did I call you out directly? Now, to specifics.
At the bottom of a section, you added a <br /> tag with no discernable purpose. If "that was in place for formatting reasons" then exactly what were those reasons? See MOS:BODY where it says Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
You gave the image a fixed size of |309x309px which was far too large, going against MOS:IMGSIZE (Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified.).
You misused the caption by including copyright information - see MOS:CREDITS (Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article.).
You also misused the |alt= parameter by repeating what you had put in the caption to which you added a partial URL of the source and some licensing information - see MOS:ALTTEXT (Alternative text allows the content and function of an image to be understood by text-only readers.).
Aside from that, you had failed to include that licensing information on the file description page, instead using the {{cc-zero}} license, which was therefore in violation of the license concerned. License laundering is forbidden, it is treated as copyright violation and can result in a block. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
New ones
Hello again R. If you could fix the items in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates it would be appreciated. The two anime portals showed up today - I added noinclude to a couple articles but it didn't remove them from the cat. I couldn't find what needed fixing in Covid template in part because many of the pages connected to it are fully protected. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk15:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Your info brings up a couple questions. On the manga pages did you have to expand the items inside the noinclude because we are dealing with a portal? The tool you use for finding recent edits looks good but, as you know, I am not very good with the programming stuff. Other than adding it to the javascript file the page is a little light an instructions on how to use it - at least to a total layman like me :-) I can try it but if I botch things do you mind my continuing to ask you for help? I do try to keep my requests to a minimum and I only turn to you when I exhaust the fixes that I know how to use. Best regards R. MarnetteD|Talk18:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
To find the two Dragon Ball pages, I went to Portal:Anime and manga/Selected series/35, which was one of the pages in the category; and I used the edit tab. At the bottom, below the buttons for "Publish changes" etc, there is a list of "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" (which you may need to click in order to expand it) - by default, this is in alphabetic order; but by use of Anomie's tool, it is listed in order of most recent edit; to install this tool, go to Special:MyPage/common.js, and at the bottom, paste in this line:
Thanks for walking me through adding the script. I've installed it - hopefully in the correct manner. Chrono order over alpha is much more helpful and almost seems like it should be the default :-) My other question involved this edit where you put more templates inside the noinclude. I don't remember seeing that fix before which is why I was wondering if it had anything to do with those portal pages being the ones that were transcluded. As always I do appreciate the time you put in to help me with things like this. MarnetteD|Talk19:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
If the templates are now being listed in reverse chronological order then you installed it correctly.
I checked and they are showing in reverse chrono so things are set. Thanks for the further clarification on the other item. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Laugharne Article
I'm just a beginner as an editor and this page is a sort of apprentice piece. Appreciate all the advice received so far but I do detect a somewhat combative tone from yourself - which may reflect that I've been unable to understand the relevance of any of your contributions to date. Perhaps I'm missing something which may become clear if you did me the courtesy of replying to my questions.
Sirjohnperrot (via Mobile phone) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
It is somewhat difficult to reply to your questions when you alter them several times after first posting them. I start to compose a reply, but as I'm saving it I get a edit conflict. Then I find that the question that I'm attempting to reply to no longer exists in that form. So I have to start all over again; after a few of these sequences I lose track and give up. Wikipedia provides a preview feature, which allows you to check through your post before saving; please use it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
My shortcomings are legion - agreed - I will try to do better. As a peace offering here is an item of possible interest to you and/or your friends in Red Roses which I came across during lockdown-enabled family history burrowings. Its source:- Eglwys Cymmin Epitaphs by Geo G.T. Treherne M.A. (1920) contains other material which may be of use in improving its article and that of Eglwyscummin (not an Electoral Ward as currently described btw). It's good to see your team has a red rose in its badge, that rules out a significant and unwelcome possibility ;-) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Making infobox image appear in hoverbox panel on link in another article without creating additional image .
Can you help with this problem at all? Dylan Thomas cf John Perrott as per this extract from former's talk page "Apologies for my multiple minor edits, as a novice the only way I found to check whether the hover image was displaying on other pages was to save the changes with each attempt. There must be a way of using the infobox image as with John Perrot but I couldn't find it and the properties of the original pic seem to have prevented it working in the hover box elsewhere or even as a separate image. No idea why otherwise no need for a new image and caption change.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)"Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I saw it - VPT has been on my watchlist for ten-some years. The thing is, what we as sighted people perceive as similar shapes may not be at all similar to the unsighted, since they may be associated with different sounds or one may have an associated sound but the other might not. Consider the Latin letter P and the Cyrillic letter Р - they look the same but their sounds are completely different; now consider the Latin letter P and the Cyrillic letter П - they look completely different but their sounds are exactly the same.
VPT is also on the watchlist of Graham87 (talk·contribs) who is a Grade A1*** accessibility expert, who would be totally unable to contribute were it not for screen reader software (check out his user page). In the unlikely event of the VPT thread not working out satisfactorily, you may direct accessibility questions to the experts at WT:WPACCESS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
*blush* I've replied there ... I didn't think of it as an accessibility issue until I was alerted to this thread (I generally dislike language-switching features of screen readers and turn them off where I can, so that's probably why). For what it's worth, I don't have VPT on my watchlist, but it's on my daily Wikipedia reading list, which has almost the same effect. Graham8705:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to deal with a literal vs. idiomatic (or possibly idiotic) translation issue. Is 'junction box' a synonym for 'signal box', or—as with North American usage—does it only refer to electrical work? Cheers. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm working (offline) on some Colonial railways, translating from foreign WPs, and was wondering if I could use that as a synonym to avoid some tedious repetition. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I've never heard the term "junction box" used in that way. I am aware of: block post; ground frame; shunt frame; signal box; signal cabin; signal tower; signalling centre. The last one is quite modern, but Thames Valley Signalling Centre (which covers over 200 miles of route, or over 500 miles of track) is ten minutes walk from my house. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have seen that you have reverted my recent page moves with the edit summary rv undiscussed move, but that is not really an appropriate reason to undo my page move in conditions like this because I certainly did not move it without discussion, I was being bold with my page moves, and I certainly did discuss at both User talk:Shhhnotsoloud ([11]) before choosing to be bold and make my page move, and I certainly do not see a rule that states all page moves require discussion. I gave a valid reason in the edit summary for making my page moves, and User:Shhhnotsoloud even thanked me for it ([12]), so I do not see any reason to revert my page moves just because I didn't initially discuss them. Thanks, C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 09:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
It was not me who was advised by Thryduulf, it was Shhhnotsoloud. And I did notify Shhhnotsoloud after making my page move. I still don't see a rule that states page moves must always be discussed before being made. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 10:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@C2A06: I said RM because I felt there should be discussion about what the best title to move to should be (dates, District Railway, something else), who I said that to is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons though, you boldly moved a page and were reverted. The next step is discussion, not arguing about whether the move should have been reverted or whether it was correct in the first place. Start an RM discussion on one of the article talk pages proposing to move both pages (it doesn't matter which as long as the other is properly notified as well). Notifications to those involved in the RfD and in the history of the page are strongly recommended. Relevant wikiprojects should be notified through article alerts, but an explicit notification on the talk page as well would not be inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
But I still don't understand WHAT is wrong with my edit.
You just link to policies, but as I see it I fullfill them all.
Can you please tell me WHICH one I am breaking, so I can learn and do better.
I HAVE read the policies, but I can't figure out what is wrong with my edit.
By just reverting, nobody gets the wiser.
If it is because of the type of the source, it can be removed. Anybody can go to the station and count the steps for themselves. The video just helps so you don't have to do that (therefore it IS a reliable source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvidstue (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Redrose64 pointed you to three policies: WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:NOR. The video you site is a self-published source and so not reliable per the meaning of our verifiability policy. Going to the station and counting the stairs yourself would be original research. Additionally, if you disagree with the reversion of a change you made the correct course of action is to discuss it on the talk page not to reinstate the edit - see Wikipedia:Bold, Revert, Discuss and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
Thank you, but isn't that section about where to publicise an RfC, not about where to hold one? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Sjones23#Re: WikiProject Anime category scheme. — Goszei (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)