User talk:Redrose64

Hello, Redrose64! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Invasion of Time edits

Moved to Talk:The Invasion of Time § Variant theme music

The link you asked for

Sorry I'm bad at using wikipedia and messed up adding the cite, I asked Northern the other day about Bolton's Platform 2 and they replied to me https://twitter.com/northernrailorg/status/291975325221535745?uid=17412258&iid=am-34365388813588638626255904&nid=56+427

Reading

Moved to m:Talk:Meetup/Reading/4#Shall we continue?

Seasons Greeting to you and yours

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

To you

		Holiday Cheer
		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

The Monk

I was sitting with a high steward, discussing Anglo-Saxon monks. The name we couldn't remember was Nennius. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: Not sure why you're asking me - I've never had anything to do with that article. I've not participated in FACs very often, and I think only once as an antagonist (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doctor Who/archive2) - I believe that there is a group of such people who regularly monitor the open FAC discussions. In fact, I've rarely participated in FACs at all - six others in total: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SECR K and SR K1 classes/archive1; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/River Parrett/archive2; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wotton railway station/archive1; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herne Hill railway station/archive1; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metropolitan Railway/archive1; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Great North of Scotland Railway/archive1. If you look at those, you'll find that mostly I was responding to a question left by another. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible explanation at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56#WP:CANVASS. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's any consolation...

Both the editor who started the RfC and another who supported it have been blocked as socks of an editor who's had a deep-seeded issue with me, thus confirming that suspicions I've had all along. Dan56 (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dan56: That doesn't answer my question above. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection template

Thanks for your contributions.

Why you have to remove protection template manually?[1] I thought it was automatic but seeing it for a while now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: There are at least two bots that remove expired (or otherwise inapplicable) prot templates, but they don't pick up all instances. The one that you indicate had expired nearly ten days before I removed it; if a bot had failed to notice it in that time, it was unlikely that it would be noticed by a bot at any time soon. Ten days is by no means unusual: I often come across pages where the prot had been expired for two, three, or even four weeks. About a month ago, I spotted one that had expired more than four months earlier. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

further @OccultZone: - one of those bots was Lowercase sigmabot (talk · contribs), which has been down since April. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that one for long. Good you still remember. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: DumbBOT (talk · contribs) is another. That's still running though; I know that it ignores {{pp-move-indef}} (cases like this where only the {{pp-semi-indef}} was removed are quite common) but I don't know why it isn't picking up the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II (talk · contribs) adds and removes {{pp-pc1}}/{{pp-pc2}}. Not sure if it handles other prot templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: - Lowercase sigmabot (talk · contribs) was restarted today. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny name indeed, why it was stopped? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:Σ/Archive/2014/August#Backlog in removal of prot templates. It may have stopped again... --Redrose64 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Got a new concern. You have probably seen {{empty}} tags on many articles. I tried but I can't find any guidelines about this tag, I think that this tag is eye hurting and it should be removed along with the empty sections from all articles where this tag was added 1 year ago. I could but I don't know how to back up. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you really mean {{empty}}? That has no transclusions, and I wouldn't expect it to have many; and the few that do occur tend to disappear pretty quickly. Also, not sure what you mean by "I don't know how to back up". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Check Template:Empty section, I would've removed the tag as well as the empty section from pages, but I don't know how to back up such action. You ever worked on this tag? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

{{empty section}} has a very different purpose from {{empty}}. When you make an edit, the previous version is recorded in the page history, so you don't need to worry about backups. If your concern is that the database will become corrupted somehow, you shouldn't worry about that either - the database is backed up periodically by the sysadmin staff. No, I've not worked on "this tag" - a check of the page history shows that. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You are being a bit technical, by backing up I meant to form the background or purpose of activity. Suppose if someone says "Why you are removing empty tags?" I should have some type of policy note or consensus to show, that would support such edits. If there is none, do you know any place where consensus can be formed? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are removing {{empty}} tags, it should be because the page concerned does not satisfy WP:CSD#A3. If the problem is removal of {{empty section}} - which as noted above is not at all the same thing - then either the section is not in fact empty, in which case the removal is justifiable - or you should be removing the immediately-preceding heading. Any heading should be followed either by content, or by a deeper-level subsection heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So many proposals. I do note that my comments were not ignored, several of the links that I provided may now be found in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop#Media Viewer roll-out and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop#Publicising of Media Viewer. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Admin or rollback rights

Hi, do you have administrator or rollback rights on Wikipedia? I know you just changed all of my signatures from a template to a substituted one. --Allen ^talk 00:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

   Sounds like a righteous series of edits, User talk:Redrose64. I don't know of specific policy against what the inquiring editor did, but i don't like it either, and don't let anyone tell you that you need to have special status to correct it. If you reach a point of feeling annoyed about pushback or reversion, i expect we could work up an RfC that we'd both be comfortable signing.
--Jerzy•t 07:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Allen2: I didn't change any of your signatures from a template to a substituted one: I changed those of your signatures that used a transcluded template into the standard form that would have been produced without signature customisation: [[User:Allen2|Allen2]] ([[User talk:Allen2|talk]]). No substitution was involved - straight copy & paste.

I was observing the policy WP:SIG#NT, which states "Transclusions of templates ... in signatures (like those which appear as {{User:Name/sig}}, for example) are forbidden" which is associated with WP:SIGCLEAN: "If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, ... you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information (—{{subst:User|USERNAME}} TIMESTAMP OF EDIT (UTC)) or some even simpler variant." I used the simpler variant, i.e. the standard form that would have been produced without signature customisation ([[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]] ([[User talk:USERNAME|talk]]) TIMESTAMP OF EDIT (UTC)).

Whether I am an admin or a rollbacker is irrelevant: none of the pages were protected, and so any user could have followed policy and made those edits. It is clear from your user talk page that you persistently and wilfully violate WP:SIG#NT, which some consider to be a blockable offense. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So none of the signature templates are allowed on Wikipedia? --Allen ^talk 17:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The only signature templates are the {{subst:unsigned}} group, which are used when another user fails to sign a post to a discussion page. SineBot (talk · contribs) uses these all the time. They are not for signing your own posts. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The preceding unsigned comment by a user who signed my talk page without a signature I put an unsigned template there. So I check the difference of it on my talk page. And also why did you edited my user page removed yourself from my friends list? --Allen ^talk 03:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I explained why in the edit summary. I never watch that TV show, or anything like it. I do not wish to be associated with it. I also have no idea what you mean by "the preceding unsigned comment by a user who signed my talk page without a signature I put an unsigned template there" - your English is extremely difficult to comprehend. Is it not your first language? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

English is my first native language what I used and it's useful. --Allen ^talk 20:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism

I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I hardly qualify. I removed a template in response to an edit request. That's all. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No sweat! Thanks for the response. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The NBA WikiProject Barnstar
		For surviving the onslaught of expired protection templates needing removal during the whirlwind rumor-filled NBA free agency period. —Bagumba (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi Redrose64 the recent edits I had made to I believe are right, please can i revert them to the way I did them please, many thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.250.139 (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not one of them was sourced, and at least one of them removed content that was sourced. Your edits also followed the same pattern as an editor who is known to be disruptive. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing all the edits I am making? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaaccckkkeey (talk • contribs) 08:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing sourced information and adding unsourced information? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? The information I'm adding is perfectly fine and correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaaccckkkeey (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Are Jaaccckkkeey and 151.224.250.139 the same person? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Jebel Dahar

Hi, can you sort out the pin map for this? I suspect I may need to create a separate Template:Location map Tunisia relief and a different parameter connecting to the location map to get it to work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Try altering |map=Tunisian Republic location map Topographic.png to |map=Tunisia. You may wish to set |label_position= as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Why Redrose64?

• "I am an enigma ... or am I?" quote from some 60s Avengers spoof. Gregkaye (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Oddly my biggest recent contribution to Wikipedia is the very divisible English rose (personal description). I'm also guessing you play chess or drafts :) Gregkaye (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I spell it "draughts". I don't play many board games, but I do drink draught beer. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|I dream of horses|ts=22:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)}}

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pouparts Junction may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• It was named after [[Samuel Poupart]] (1807–1875, a market gardener who at one time owned a farm on land that is now [[Shaftesbury Park

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Bunch

They

call

it

multiple

image

even

though

"bunch"

also

works

 :)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway RDT

Thanks for that. it's late here and my brain stopped answering the helm about an hour ago. Britmax (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Citation problem

Thanks for your help yesterday. Now I have a relatively minor problem. I was looking for someone who has worked with citation templates. I have an unusual page number problem.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Er, what problem on which page? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Several. The page I currently am dealing with is in The York Observer, a section of The Charlotte Observer. Oh, wait, it's not a draft. Springs Global. I'm in the middle of a major addition that could take days or weeks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Try |at=York Observer, p. 1 --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving of my talk page

Hey, you set up my talk page archiving. However the links don't show up in the box. How do I fix that? NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 09:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to set the root dir --Redrose64 (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for archiving my talk page for me. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Tunceli/Dersim Dispute

Moved to User talk:Master Tyranus § August 2014

 – Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work here. I went for protecting the Wrong Version, figuring that a history merge could be carried out whenever if necessary, but there is merit to keeping the old name for now. Hopefully the involved editors can figure it out on talk. Keep it up. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@2over0: I left some comments at User talk:Master Tyranus#August 2014. Their edits - all 46 of them - were made within 24 hours, and the vast majority had a single purpose: changing all instances of "Dersim" to "Tunceli". Which one of these two is correct, I really don't know: but I do feel that unilateral changing of one to the other, without indicating either a prior discussion or an existing guideline, is disruptive; as are the several instances of a WP:CUTPASTE move. It is the latter which I reverted, primarily in the interests of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. It might be that Tunceli is correct: in which case the pages should be moved in the proper manner; or it might be that Dersim is correct: in which case most of the remaining edits of that user will need to be reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Reinstatement of link regarding Newport Railway Station.

This citing reference was removed as the website link is broken and no longer provides information for the citing reference. I therefore cannot see whay you have reinstated it. I suggest it is removed or a revised reference provided to a website that actually works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gif absarnt (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gif absarnt: Have a look at the edit that I made immediately after. I added a {{dead link}}, as advised at WP:BADLINK. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Oops, my mistake, sorry! --Gif (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Argh, confused

Hmmm:
I adjusted User:MiszaBot settings to minthreadsleft = 10 at:
Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism There are just 5 threads currently at:
Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism but records at:
page history show that Lowercase sigmabot III was still active
confused I am. can you advise? Gregkaye (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: Several pairs of closing braces were in the wrong place, these seem to have been caused some weeks ago. For example, this edit by Jimjilin (talk · contribs) had inexplicably moved those for {{User:MiszaBot/config}} earlier on, so that three parameters |minthreadstoarchive=1|algo=old(30d)|archive=Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive %(counter)d were no longer inside that template, and so were ignored; and this edit by DD2K (talk · contribs) - which may have been an attempt to fix the earlier error - had moved those for {{talkarchivenav}} to also enclose three parameters |maxarchivesize=100K |counter=5 |minthreadsleft=10 which it does not recognise, but which actually belonged to the {{User:MiszaBot/config}}. The effect of this was that lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) ignored them, using its default values instead - |counter=1 |minthreadsleft=5 - and so the next thread that was archived went into the wrong archive page. For {{User:MiszaBot/config}}, it is important that each parameter go on its own line; that no parameter includes a newline; and that the closing double braces must be on a line of their own. I've fixed up those closing braces with this edit, and I've moved the thread from the wrong archive to the correct one. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I was trying to fix the errors. Before my edit you could see the "archive = Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive %(counter)d" on the Talk page, and the Wikldbot entry was garbled. I thought I fixed it, but evidently not. Sorry. :-P Dave Dial (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rr, that really helps :) Gregkaye (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

PAGENAME kept

I implemented the (now) obvious compromise.

I tried closing the RfD. I hope you weren't bothered too much by all this, but would you ensure the RfD is really "keep" and closed? Thank you. — CpiralCpiral 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cpiral: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions. You didn't close the discussion, and you didn't put {{Old RfD}} on the talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania

Just FYI. I am in Wikimania too. Have we met in person? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: We may have done; but I don't recall. I tried checking the name tags of people that I spoke to, but some weren't wearing them, and others had written their real names, not their Wikipedia login IDs. But looking at the pics recently added to your user page (I assume that you're in one or more of them), I don't recall speaking to any of these people, sorry. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Informal dispute intervention?

   At the risk of proving again that No good deed goes unpunished, i note you were kind enuf to point out that in the bulk of the cases L[ower]C[ase &]FirstItalic[in]Title sufficed. (I'm pretty sure i eliminated all the warnings, and i've built a list of 32 articles, of which i've double-checked about half for warnings, consistency, and the conversion from MagicWord to template that you urged.)
   Despite the warning i gave on the nom'n page, i've worn the Order of the Mop and Bucket (with the "Mostly Harmless" charge) for i guess eleven years now, and logged a lot of hours pursuing my varied interests by editing, yet have not cultivated social relationships here (let alone attending off-line wiki-events). I now find myself, after all these years, facing an editing situation that will clearly require 3rd-party assistance (tho hopefully not step-by-step DR -- but then, i've already been surprised today by the response to my own proffer.)
   I'm not gonna claim that i'm free of responsibility for bad communication, but my hope that being calm in drawing attention to how over-the-top and inflammatory the (now re-iterated) accusation of "POVFORK" is, was clearly too optimistic.
   I'll watch this page. Thanks for at least your reading time.
--Jerzy•t 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

   Ah! I just noticed your attention to Arbcom matters just below the history entry for my immediately preceding entry on this page, which i opened for monitoring purposes. I guess it's a little late to worry about whether i should have let that encourage or inhibit my ... proffer, i guess (if it's ok to use the same two-dollar word twice in one editing session...).
--Jerzy•t 06:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

   Ah, and in case it's not obvious, i meant to suggest your looking at my contribs from and since the 2 on Aug 9 and the adjacent ones on the pages i edited. I suppose you are likely, if you accept, to review the record before discussing anything with either of us, and it seems like a bad idea to suggest i volunteer any explanations, intentions, etc. at this point!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 August 2014‎

@Jerzy: It's not at all clear what you want. I gather that you are in dispute with somebody, and would like an outside opinion; but I can't tell what the dispute is about, nor where the discussion is being held. Excluding signatures and the like, you've given nine links, only one of which is to a discussion - which has two parties, you and me. Another of those nine links, although titled "my contribs from and since the 2 on Aug 9", is actually to the history of this page, and again, I don't see the relevance. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

   No, it's not clear, and your clarity has been valuable. I am turning my back on what is for me now clearly a gumption trap (at least in the sense i was given to understand without ever opening the novel). If your sense of the matter is that my doing so is irresponsible, or occasion for comment of any sort, you have my attention. But IMO you have already been a valuable catalyst for my thinking, you've earned my thanks for your patience and effort, and i've zero resistance to further input from you. I apologize if i've abused that patience.
   IMO it's a shame that the barriers to adequately covering the 2 or 3 topics surrounding the verb phrase "to beg the question" are as high as they seem to me, and that some IMO philospher-kings are confused about NOT, but there are other editors for the articles and other articles for me -- and the slow-grinding mills, etc. Thanks again for your patience and your service.
--Jerzy•t 23:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Label question

Hey Redrose, I was looking at Monstercat (label), and I can't help but wonder--are we really a directory, listing all the label's records and all their artists? And shouldn't those artists at least have bluelinks? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's had a lot of recent activity by IPs and newbies. Have WP:RECORD LABELS been informed? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That place isn't very active, and I didn't see any guidelines. (But I found your name on the talk page...) Drmies (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, from five years ago, when I'd been editing for no more than ten weeks. Notice that my first post to that page was a q that was never answered - my subsequent posts were made while I was still watching the page, waiting for an answer to my first post. Try WP:ALBUMS? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, to answer your question, I don't have much of a problem with a simple bulleted list, but YMMV... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Documentation/preload

Hi, need your template coding expertise, could you look at Template:Documentation/preload and advise us about whether where the brackets/braces are placed that it will avoid any unwanted whitespace? There is also a concern about the opening and closing braces not being aligned. Since I'm not a code expert, would like your input, thank you! Funandtrvl (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is it being discussed? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

On my user page at User talk:Funandtrvl#Template:Documentation/preload. How do I properly move the discussion to the template's talk page? Funandtrvl (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Use {{moved from}} like this and {{moved to}} like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've moved the discussion to: Template talk:Documentation#Template:Documentation/preload‎. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Tube map

Hey, don’t blame me! it was DavidCane (talk · contribs) who botched things up with this edit. Useddenim (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Leslie Howe Protection

I'm not used to the new protection options. Thank you for catching my mistake. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 19:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tiptoety: Oh, then you'll have fun when they introduce a fifth prot level that we mere admins can't select. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Empty lines, "clear left", dddot and jerky matter

Hi, and many thanks for editing my "Jerk(physics)" amendments. I'm new around here and not very succesful in orienting myself in the preliminaries to edit Wikipedia and in the documents on this. I'm certainly aware of the adverse effects of blank lines, and, of course, I did not like how the inserted pictures were placed in the layout, but even when seeing your {{clear left}}, or just the "clear" alone, I did not mange to find it in MoS and in help on Wikimarkup. I am still not finished looking for the treatment of images wrt layout, also.

I remeber you as extremely helpful and knowledgeable in the problem of my HTML list some week ago, so may I ask you again for help and perhaps some advise (links), how to efficently climb the steep learning curve for editing Wikipedia.

Sorry, your last edit of removing one "d" from "dddot" does not hit the spot. A third derivative is needed there. I enabled Mathjax in my preferences and could render the three dots and only afterwards, when logged out I saw the red error massage and now your edit. To maintain correct propositions I had to remove the whole Newton formulation for the third derivative of the location, the second derivative would have been simply wrong. Thats an other question: do you know a workaround for this? Thanks again and in advance. Purgy (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

When entering a formula using <math>...</math>, it's best to test it both with "⧼mw_math_mathjax⧽" enabled and disabled.

I had assumed that \dddot was a typo for \ddot but if intentional, we need some other means. The main help page is Help:Math; as noted there, MediaWiki uses a subset of AMS-LaTeX markup, so some features are absent. According to Math into LATEX: An Introduction to LATEX and AMS-LATEX, Appendix A.12 (p. 355), the \dddot and \ddddot commands "require the amsmath package", I guess we don't have that. I think you should enquire at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will inquire there for the "dddot". May I however come back to you for the {{clear left}} and {{clear}} you used in arranging my thumbnails so successfully? Really, I tried to search in MoS and elsewhere, but was left without any success. Any link, please? If I get an answer from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, I'll postback here. Thank you. Purgy (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

{{clear}} and {{clear left}} are templates (click the links to see their documentation) that in essence provide a MediaWiki-friendly way of applying the 'clear' property of CSS.

Another place that you can ask about <math>...</math> syntax is at the talk page of Help:Math, which is Help talk:Displaying a formula - and I see that the very first thread there relates to the dddot problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, Salix alba supplied a work around: \overset{...}{x} ${\overset {...}{x}}$ in his reply to my request in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Typography, just FYI, and thanks for the clear, I'm already investigating, :) Purgy (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, thank you cordially for caring for my edits of "Jerk". Please, let me state, that I really try hard to make my links totally de rigeur, and I am quite assured, I'll make it some day. I think I have already developed some feeling for that clear-template and I applied it, imho satisfactory, to a multiple image (somewhat proud of myself). I plan more of this.

Regarding this circuit with diodes, I have announced in the talk pages of talk:chaos theory (note, no underscore anymore!) and talk:jerk (physics) to move this section since it is not really belonging to mechanics. I plan to leave the sketching sentences in the lede, anyhow.

I hope it is OK to edit this old question, and thanks again, I feel the fun in being guided. Purgy (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Fields Medal page

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

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

OK,Thank you for your time and patience to teach a Newbie!I'll wait until that timeRezameyqani (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Lichfield Trent Valley (Services)

Lichfield Trent Valley station is wrong, there is still a few trains from Crewe via Northampton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollier642 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 August 2014‎

@Ollier642: Then please discuss it on the article's talk page. There are far too many people making little changes to the service information of various railway station articles, that get altered again a day or two later, sometimes back to how they were. More at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#IP adding timetable information. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised this hasn't come up earlier

Hi R. I thought we would be dealing with this Talk:Doctor Who#Doctor Who citation available from the moment "The Time of the Doctor" finished airing. The 11th Doctors line about "Mr Grumpy" and the reference to the events with the hand in "The Stolen Planet" and "Journey's End" as well as the "whole new regeneration cycle" - first offered to the Master in The Five Doctors if memory serves. Of course, all this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and Moffat is just as likely to take us in a direction that has nothing to do with it and I am not saying that any of it should be included in our articles. Mostly I wanted to stop by and wish you happy viewing this weekend as we enter Capaldi's era as our favourite Time Lord. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. At 19:00 BST (18:00 UTC) we had an edition of The One Show with Peter Capaldi, showing short clips: the recent world tour, "The Fires of Pompeii", a script read-through, photocall, quick quotes from Steven Moffat, Jenna Coleman. Capaldi has denied the rumours about Coleman. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like enjoyable viewing. We had a couple BBCA specials hosted by Peter Davison. Several of the interviewees mentioned that Capaldi is so appreciative of being cast in the show that he is sitting in on scenes that he isn't in, effects shots, Murray Gold's recording sessions etc etc. I am so lucky that we get the episodes on the same day. That makes it much easier to avoid "spoilers." Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Alas, it's Late Summer Bank Holiday, so I shall be at my mother's, who has refused to watch DW since about 1965 (I was one year old at the time) on the grounds that it's "too frightening". My father liked to watch it, but he died way back in 1986. I'll be PVRing it for Tuesday. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You are the second WikiP editor that I have chatted with who is away from home this weekend! Safe travels. MarnetteD|Talk 20:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If you take these lyrics and substitute in the line "A new Doctor tonight" I think you get something that works pretty well as a theme song each time we get a regeneration episode. I started hearing it in my head when Chris turned into David. BTW Jon Pertwee was in the London cast of the play that this song is from in 1963 and he also had a small role in the film!! Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I watched it, despite Mum wanting the to see the prog about Egyptian Archaeology on the other side. She didn't like DW. She likes Victorian costume drama, is absolutely fine with married lesbians, and not too upset about humanoid lizards; but dislikes Sontarans (and anybody else who carries weapons) and positively went out of the room when the insides of the steampunk cyborg were visible.

Do you recall me talking about Ideal at User talk:MarnetteD/archive27#The Five Doctors - did you get around to watching any of those? In Ideal, there's a character called Colin (who appears in 38 of the 53 episodes), who is played by Ben Crompton (without a beard). This is the same actor who (with a beard) plays Ross in tonight's DW - he's one of the three soldiers who go on the mission with the Doctor and Clara. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I was at a barbecue just last night and the joke was "It is odd that there was internet buzz about the lesbian kiss but little about it being inter-species as well" I laughed and said "well I think captain Jack took care of that years ago." I also had one fun reaction to "Deep Breath" - as a longtime devotee of Local Hero when the Capldi's Doctor yelled "Have you seen this face before" I wanted to shout "Yes!! I saw it kissing Marina's toes until she spread them and we saw that they were webbed" Heehee. Sadly, Ideal hasn't been added to my collection yet :-( Other things (like 37 Days and a nice Werner Herzog set) keep getting in the way. I haven't forgotten it though and I look forward to seeing it one day. Thanks for letting me know about the acting connection in tonight's episode. PS I wish your mom could give Dan Starkey's Sontaran a chance. He is pitch perfect and makes me laugh out loud at times. Oh well :-) Enjoy the rest of your weekend! MarnetteD|Talk 20:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Much as it pains me to complain about a fellow admin, does the edit summary constitute a personal attack? Getting a bit fed up seeing this, especially when he can't even get my name right. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: It doesn't seem like a PA to me, it's a cleanup of a ref that's got redundant information. You began it with <ref name=Times080234 /> but then followed it with {{Cite newspaper The Times |articlename=Ship News |day_of_week=day |date= February 1834 |page_number= |issue=153 |column= }}</ref> which was visible in the article text as

"Ship News". The Times. No. 153. London. February 1834. template uses deprecated parameter(s) (help)</ref>

An alternative to Bgwhite's removal would have been to remove the slash from <ref name=Times080234 /> to make <ref name=Times080234> but then I think that AWB won't permit that.

Some time ago, I noticed that you often make typos when you edit, and return to them in order to fix them. I may be wrong, but I think that you may have poor eyesight (my own is deteriorating), and perhaps a note on your user page to explain this may help people like Bgwhite to understand. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The typos are more a case of fat fingers than failing eyesight. Probably a case of trying to type as fast as I can think (which I can't lol). Apart from that, I'm often in pain when editing, which does affect one's concentration. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Mjroots Could you atleast turn on bracketbot. Alot of the errors are bracket related. You have philosophical reasons for not wanting it and refuse to turn it on. But, Bracketbot will tell you exactly where the problems are located. It will also not waste my time fixing the broken brackets. Over the past few days, I've made seven separate edits on List of shipwrecks in 1833. I've made edits to over 20 ship articles in the past week. Having health problems is one thing, but refusing to turn on bracketbot to help fix things is a different story. Bgwhite (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: - what is the current delay before Bracketbot notifies? I don't mind bots alerting me to issues, but Bracketbot wasn't giving sufficient time before posting, hence the denial. DPLbot is a useful bot, as I can't remember every dab; but it doesn't pounce the minute I make an error! Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Looking at the last two BracketBot notifications on my talk page, it seems that the current delay is 10 minutes.

I find that User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js is very helpful, as it adds a button to the edit form to preview the current section, with a references section included. Using this preview helps me to catch some of my own reference mistakes before saving, and before someone else notices. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Northern Ireland railway station geocoordinates

Many thanks for your work on this. It's much appreciated. -- The Anome (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Anome: I've been doing one line at once, as I find time. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hatting discussions!?

Hi Redrose64,

I have been involved in a requested move discussion and in 3 1/2 hours of my last comment it was hatted as in circles. Is this right/fair?
I hope its OK asking.

Talk:Antisemitism#Requested_move

Cheers

Gregkaye (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother. Its all sorted. How are you though?

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rhydyfelin

Hello, Redrose. I was looking to geocode this article, but the 1940s OS map (as here shows two halts along that line at Rhydyfelin, one to the northwest of the village and one to the northeast. Do any of your UK-railway sources perhaps give some indication which of the two is the halt that's the topic of the article? Deor (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Centre one of the red dots in the pale square. Then click "View at old-maps.co.uk", select a suitable date from the scrolly list on the right; try for 1:2500 scale, although sometimes only 1:10560 is available. See what detail you can make out without buying a subscription. Using this technique, I find that the one to the north-east is close to Dynea Colliery, so must be Dynea Halt; on this basis, the one to the north-west must be Rhydyfelin (High Level) Halt. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you've geotagged the article with the coordinates of the pre-1928 location of the halt, so I've added those of the later location in the body of the article. I'm never quite sure which should be the main article coordinates in such a situation. Deor (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't appreciated that there were two. I suppose the coords could be exchanged, but I'm not aware of a guideline for that. WP:NC (UK stations) shows that when choosing a name, "the last official name should be used for closed stations"; perhaps coords should do the same. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the coords of both locations (which are not all that far apart) are in the article, and it's not a great matter which are displayed in the title position. I doubt that many folks will care either way. Thanks again for your help, in any event. Deor (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0

Moved to Talk:LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 § Detail overload?

 – Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Moorfields

Did stop them closing Liverpool Central with usage over 12million. Echo--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kitchen Knife: Ah, but that was a temporary closure. The way that 82.36.167.56 (talk) wrote it, it reads as a permanent closure for Moorfields. That sort of claim needs a ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The URL changes

I'm sorry Redrose64, but can I ask: How about that thing csn be in user preferences? It bothers me. I'm not a fan of it, and I'm sure if I post in my sections of what I wrote, I won't get responses anymore. I wrote a message to Matma Rex and he's not responding. This things is a disaster, it's ruined my new month. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @A Great Catholic Person: Please remember that WP:CIVIL includes edit summaries too. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @A Great Catholic Person: You don't actually say what thing in user preferences. In any case, I don't control anybody's user preferences except for my own, and I don't have any ability to control what is available at user preferences, with the sole exception of the various items under Preferences → Gadgets - and of those, the only ones that I've ever amended were:

• MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert-core.js (sub-script for "^(D) CharInsert: add a toolbar under the edit window for quickly inserting wiki markup and special characters (troubles?)")
• MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.js (script for "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page")
• MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js (data for "^(D) Geonotice: display notices on your watchlist about events in your region")
• MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat/de (German-language description for "^(S) HotCat: easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions (example)")
• MediaWiki:Gadget-purgetab (default description for 'Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache')
• MediaWiki:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.css (style sheet for "^(D) Reference Tooltips: hover over inline citations to see reference information without moving away from the article text (does not work if "Navigation popups" is enabled above)")
• MediaWiki:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.js (script for "^(D) Reference Tooltips: hover over inline citations to see reference information without moving away from the article text (does not work if "Navigation popups" is enabled above)")
• MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js (sub-script for 'Enable the Teahouse "Ask a question" feature')

Does your problem concern one of these? But whatever it is that you're talking about, edit summaries like this won't help you at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64, I want the option of allowing URL changing in the preferences - I can disable it, if it were allowed.A Great Catholic Person (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you're asking the wrong person, and by starting off confrontational, you're asking in the wrong way too. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Who should I ask then, because a big one who knows this can't reply?A Great Catholic Person (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

To propose a new item in Preferences → Gadgets, see Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals; for all other tabs at Preferences, file a feature request at bugzilla:. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:FindMyPast access

You received a Wikipedia email about Wikipedia Library access to WP:FindMyPast about 3 weeks ago. We currently don't have record of your response on the Google form. Please make sure to follow the instructions in that email for obtaining access, Sadads (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sadads: Oh, thanks. I don't think I deleted it: I need to search again, possibly even check my email spam box. Is there a deadline by which I must register? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sooner the better for registering, and I can always resend the email, if you can't find it, Sadads (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Refs

I was wondering what was your preferred method, now that reflinks has gone? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Same as it ever was, since I never used reflinks; and not only that, found too many problems in reflinks edits made by others, e.g. User talk:Lotje/Archives/2013/January#Please be careful with authors, User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks/Archive 1#Dates are not authors. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree, dates are not authors, usually. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 This is "replacement" set up by the author of reflinks. There are alot of politics and security issues about this, as you can see from the page. Long story short, your tool has to have an open source licence to run on WMFLabs. Dispenser doesn't want to open source his code. He also wants ~23TB of space, which works out to 1MB per link. People find this impossibly too much per link. Note, if you use the tool, Dispenser is storing your IP. He can then match who edited the wikipage to the IP used on reflinks to know who you are.

This was emailed to WMFLabs people of few days ago. "mw:Citoid is a new web service under development that performs full citation metadata extraction for a number of supported sources, and basic metadata extraction (<title>) for others. It's not working perfectly yet, but it is running in Labs right now, and a nice front-end might be a good alternative to the (now gone) reflinks tool ... There is an existing user script for VisualEditor that demonstrates the basic usage." Bgwhite (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: I suspect that Martinevans123 is aware of Citoid, since their only comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decisions was added two posts below the first mention of Citoid. Please note that I'm no longer participating in that thread: the comments directed at me after the post by Martinevans123 will show you why not. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that thread. I only look at the bottom of tech pump about once a week. My only comment to that mess of a thread... I've taken over a tool that was abandoned when the programmer left. It would have died when toolserver was turned off. A majority of the code had an open source licence, part did not. It was a royal pain and many months to re-engineer the closed code. If it's not an open source license and the programmer leaves, the tools leaves too. I can't count how many times that has happened. Bgwhite (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The "replacement" tool just gives me <class 'oursql.InterfaceError'>. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC) n

Martinevans123, I haven't tried it yet, but... User:Zhaofeng Li/Reflinks. Must have been announced somewhere recently as it popped up on my watchlist today be several editors. Bgwhite (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Buckinghamshire

Are you still a contributor to WikiProject Buckinghamshire?
The portal says it may be inactive, and I am interested in contributing.
Thanks.

Uamaol (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I never bother with portals. Portals are not the same as WikiProjects; I seem to recall doing something for WikiProject Buckinghamshire a few years back. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buckinghamshire has fewer than thirty watchers, so I would say that not many people are interested in it. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Quote box

Hi Redrose, thanks for helping with that quote box. I really struggle with these things (but I'm trying to learn), so information like that helps a lot. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: TheDJ seems to have gone on indefinite wikibreak (more here and previous posts on the same page), so if you have any other CSS queries, feel free to ask here. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you. I'm really sorry to hear about TheDJ. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Article assessment table

Hey, Redrose. Are you still involved with the maintenance of Template:WP1? If so, I could use your help in figuring out why a particular WikiProject article assessment table has stopped automatically updating. Do you have a few minutes to take a look? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: I was never "involved with the maintenance of Template:WP1". I made one edit to {{WP1}}, at somebody else's request. Anyway, on the talk page of that template, I guess you mean this thread, so I suppose that the thread above it is where you got my name from. In that thread, you link to Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Florida/Florida Gators subproject, and (I'm guessing again) I suspect that your problem is the table at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Florida/Florida Gators subproject#Aritcle Assessments.

Now I'm going into unfamiliar territory. Immediately above that table are three links; if I follow the first of these (Index), in that page select "Project summary tables" from the left sidebar, select "Florida Gators" from the list after "Generate table", and then click Make table, I get this table.

I agree that there is a discrepancy between that table and the one currently displayed here. But this is really not my area; I can't help with that. But there are plenty of links around the place which you could be trying. For instance, in all of the pages reached by that Index link, there are two links titled Bug reports - have you tried those? Then, the table's history shows that it's bot-generated, and I operate no bots. According to the bot's home page, it's "operated by Theopolisme and Wolfgang42" (two more to try); that page also says "to report any problems you encounter, please use Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index, and the same link is given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot#Maintaining the lists: it says "if you have any problems, please contact us" - there's another one to try. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, RedRose. Indeed, I found your name on the talk page, knowledgeably answering another editor's inquiry, so I assumed . . . .

Following the additional links you provided above, I eventually found a page a link to a WMF tool page where the operation of the WP1 bot can be initiated manually -- which worked. As to why it is no longer updating automatically, I don't have a clue. I will pursue this further with Theopolisme, Wolfgang42 et al. Frankly, I had no conception of the mechanics of how the whole thing worked, and was only too happy to use the updated data without knowing how it all worked -- all very "wizard behind the curtains" to me. Now I've had the introductory survey course, thanks to your links kindly provided above. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is how I got to Template:WP1 in the first place. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, RR, but I don't understand the meaning of the diff above. You may have to explain. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a page on my watchlist. It tracks uncompleted protected edit requests for fully protected pages, and presents them as a table, one row per request. The edit that I linked added one row to the table, containing (among other items) links to Template:WP1 and Template talk:WP1#editprotected. The first of these is the template that you named at the start of this thread; and at that time, the second link pointed to this version. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Got it. Thanks for helping to partially solve the mystery. FYI, Wolfgang42 and Theopolisme have not been active since June and early August, and their activity seems to have been decreasing before then. That probably has something to do with the failure of the WP1 bot to automatically update the article assessment tables in question. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup editnotices

Hi Redrose64. I have nominated the 2014 FIFA World Cup editnotices, some of which you created, for deletion. You are welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Space around infoboxes and images

Hi Redrose, I was wondering if you know how to create white space around infoboxes and images. I know how to do it with tables; for example, with the table in this section of Christian Science, I wrote "margin-left:30px" to move the text away from the table (it could probably use a little more). But if you look at the infobox at that article, the text seems too close, and I don't know how to fix it. Ditto with the sidebars and images. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In Christian Science, the margins in general seem fine to me. Do you find that they are different from other Wikipedia pages? For me, the main problem is with the images. There is no consistent size; many of them seem to be inordinately large - so large, in fact, that the table that you mention is pushed down the page to appear under the "Prayer, testimonies" heading. This is because a floating table cannot be displayed with its top edge any higher than the top edge of the immediately-preceding image. Beginning at the second paragraph of the Tremont Temple, first church building section, the right-hand side is a continuous run of images that doesn't end until this image, part-way through the Works by Mary Baker Eddy section, whose two columns are squashed up by the stack of images.

What I would do is to remove the size specifier from all of the images, and then for those that are taller than they are wide, add the |upright parameter. In this way, all the images will be approximately the same size, and of just two different widths. More at MOS:IMAGES#Size and WP:IMGSIZE. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I want the images to be large, but I'll take a look at the spacing to try to remove the problems you're seeing. Thanks for pointing that out! Re: the white space, it's not that it's worse there than anywhere else. I was just wondering if you knew how to create more of it, particularly around infoboxes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking at it through a large browser window? I just increased mine to the maximum, and I can see what you mean now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My screen is 1280 wide (by 1024 high). Other people have screens even wider, so for those people, the image stack will go down even further - and may compromise the columns in the refs. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a few images and a sidebar, adjusted some sizes, including of quote boxes, and added some clears. Does it look any better? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There are over thirty images with a forced size. Of those, twelve are 220px wide, which shouldn't be necessary because that is the default width for |thumb images; thirteen are 300px wide, which is right at the upper limit for lead section images - but none of these are in the lead, they are in the body; five are odd sizes between those (240px, 250px, 270px); and two are more than 300px wide (File:First Church of Christ Scientist in Boston.JPG is 320px, File:Christian Scientists' Association picnic, Point of Pines, 16 July 1885.jpg is a massive 350px) for which I cannot see any justification. When the article was promoted to GA-class back in February 2013, there were only four images bigger than default - they were all 250px. The Good Article Criteria require (point 2) compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, which includes image sizes at WP:LAYIM. If your intention is to get the article to FA-class, which requires compliance with Wikipedia:Image use policy, it's not going to manage it as things stand. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to learn how to use the upright parameter, but I've never been able to get it to work so that things look decent. I'm really tired of the long lines of text, tiny images, lack of white space. It's ugly and hard to read – also, I wonder how many people would actually read WP on a wide window, given that we have no columns; people are basically forced to narrow the window. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You could always ask WP:GOCE to give it a workover. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for all your help!

Phyllis Allen 01:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hastings Line

The article is finally going to be reviewed for GA status. Floydian (talk · contribs) is doing the review. A very experienced editor who is from Ontario, Canada, so maybe unfamiliar with some of the nuances of British railway technology. I don't see this as posing that great a problem, but maybe you would keep a weather eye on the review and assist me in clarifying any points raised. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I watchlisted Talk:Hastings Line/GA1 some months ago: IIRC it was within 12 hours of you nominating it for GA. So today I found out that the GA had started through my watchlist in three different ways: one was by Floydian creating the /GA1 page; the other two were Legobot posting to your talk page and also transcluding the GA page to the main talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are you?

Hey Redrose, where you've been on Wikipedia? --Allen ^talk 23:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Many places, see my contribs. But just a reminder: Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, or social networking service - this is in relation to recent posts at User talk:Allen2. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Stubs

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

@Dr. Blofeld: You've created 95,563 articles in total (here are the last ten), so this query should list all of them. Unfortunately, it times out - I can query off 10,000, but not 100,000. It also doesn't seem to have an offset= parameter to the query string that might help by only querying back from a given point - i.e. &offset=20140901000001 or similar. The copyright note at the bottom names four individuals: Hedonil, Cyberpower678, TParis, X! - perhaps one of them can help to get the information. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I don't mean created by me! I didn't join formally until June 2006. I mean a way of finding the oldest articles on here which are still stubs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In which case, sorry, I don't have access to that kind of information. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I had though the new pages had a place where you could tap in date created. I'd be interested to see the very earliest from 2001.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Special:NewPages goes back thirty days, and no more. The oldest edit which is believed to be still in existence is described at WP:UuU, which indicates that the first article created was WikiPedia. A lot of people would like to see which are the oldest pages, but unfortunately a lot of early revisions were deleted (permanent delete, not an admin's "delete") many years ago. I've never looked into the very early history in any detail - again, because I don't have either the tools or access to the data. An expert on the matter is Graham87 (talk · contribs), who has recovered many early edits, previously thought lost. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A quick and dirty way to get this information is by checking what links to Wikipedia:Stub, because all stub templates contain a link to that page and the "what links here" feature is ordered by page ID (a higher page ID usually, but not always, means a more recently created page ... but page ID's aren't preserved during deletions). There are a few caveats with this list though; it doesn't count pages that were deleted and later restored, it may not include some pages that were history-merged, and, most importantly, Wikipedia's first 20,000 or so articles were all mass-imported into the current database by Conversion script, so the page ID's in these case are based on the page titles' positions in the alphabet when the pages were imported (e.g. "Geography of American Samoa" was then at the title "American Samoa/Geography").

To get a complete answer to this question, you'll need to ask somebody with access to the Wikimedia Labs database to do a query for you. I don't really know who or where would be the best place to ask, but Wikimedia Labs does have an IRC channel, #wikimedia-labs, and the people pinged above may be able to help. Graham87 14:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. You'd think there would be some way to access all articles in order of creation from the very beginning..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

TWA protected edit requests

Hi Redrose. I wanted to talk to you about the deluge of bogus protected edit requests you've been so diligently handling. I'm trying to think of a way to cut down that cleanup work for you and others. What's clearly happening is that editors in the game are posting to 'Game' pages, which are protected, rather than to their own, personal Userpace pages for the game. That is a usability mistake on my end, as it shouldn't even be possible, let alone common. In the meantime, I wanted to ask if you have any thoughts on a potential fix? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ocaasi: I really don't know about a fix. To begin with, all of these requests were landing on diverse pages like these. As you can see, I tagged most of them them {{db-test}}, but if a particular page was recreated three or so times, I redirected it to Wikipedia talk:TWA/Portal - because the root page Wikipedia talk:TWA was itself redirected there. That is why the Feedback page is now attracting the majority. You may have noticed that I sent a note to User talk:Superm401#TWA - protected edit requests. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks

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

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

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

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

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

• At English Wikipedia:
  • MediaWiki:Gadget-geonotice-list.js (upcoming only: for masochists; includes non-UK events, and a few that are not meetups. UK meetups are listed no more than four weeks in advance)
  • Template:Meetup-UK (upcoming, plus ten older events)
  • Template:UK Wikipedia meetups (includes historical info)
  • Wikipedia:Meetup/UK (includes historical info)
• At Meta:
  • m:Meetup/UK/Footer list (includes historical info)
  • m:Template:Meetup list (upcoming, plus ten older events: includes non-UK events)
  • m:User:Redrose64/geonotice (upcoming only: this page is the smallest)
• At WikiMedia UK:
  • wmuk:Events (upcoming, plus older events for current month - includes events that are not meetups)

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

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

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

St Pancras railway station

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

Taha Zareei

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

By the way-the articles I usually will put AFD's for are when the prod was deleted, older ones, ect. (Like I just put a AFD on one person who could be notable but since the user kept on deleting the prod and since it seems to be that many think you need to put a afd up instead I did that.) I don't usually do them on auotmatic though, I made a mistake by doing one earlier though ha, well thanks. Wgolf (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wgolf: A user can't "keep on deleting the prod". Once a prod - by which I assume that you mean a {{proposed deletion/dated}}, that being the template yielded by {{subst:prod}} - has been removed from an article, it cannot be replaced, and so it can't be removed more than once. If it is removed, it becomes a WP:CONTESTED prod, and there can be no further prod on that article.

However, if you are referring to the removal of a {{prod blp/dated}}, this is not a prod, and the rules at WP:BLPPROD apply: so long as the article remains unsourced, the removal is improper - it should be reverted and the person who removed it notified. The escalating series of warning templates {{subst:uw-blpprod1}} etc. are available for this. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Mention elsewhere

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

London86

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

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

Thank you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Here you go! Wgolf (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - but why? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome-for your hard work (and I was hungry lol) Wgolf (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Asidhara Rays

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

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

Bingham Road halt- closure date.

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

@Steamybrian2: Yes, I got the information from Butt - here is the edit where I added that info, previous to which, the dates were not referenced at all. Regarding the closure date, notice that the Wikitext includes

it was officially closed from 15 May.<ref name=Butt />

That last part - the <ref name=Butt /> - is the reference, it is a reuse of a ref that had occurred in the previous paragraph:

It was opened on 1 September 1906<ref name=Butt>{{cite book |last=Butt |first=R.V.J. |title=The Directory of Railway Stations |year=1995 |publisher=Patrick Stephens Ltd |location=Yeovil |isbn=1-85260-508-1 |id=R508 |page=34 |ref=harv }}</ref>

I have explained about references before; you may care to review WP:CITE (or if you prefer, WP:CITEBEGIN). If you change referenced material so that it no longer agrees with the cited source, you must not only provide your source, but also be able to demonstrate why your source is more reliable than the one that was already there. This may be done on the article's talk page, Talk:Bingham Road Halt railway station.

Travelling on the last train is inadmissible as a source, as is any other personal knowledge: it does not satisfy the policy on verifiability and also fails the policy on original research. You also cannot use Wikipedia as a ref source, see WP:CIRCULAR. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

(talk page stalker) I think this is another one which Butt has got wrong. {{Quick-Stations}} gives 16 May as the official closure date and it is also in the Connor work (p. 12) to which Steamybrian refers. The last train ran on 13 May according to Croydon's Railways by M.W.G. Skinner (p. 37), with Alan Jackson's London's Local Railways (p. 55) confirming that the last service departed SNR at 19:30 on that date. I also have a London Railway Record article somewhere which I imagine would add further confirmation. What to do with the infobox? Add 15/16 or treat Butt as wrong? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If the article has a ref to Butt, and Butt says 15 May, changing the date to 16 May whilst leaving the source as Butt (as Steamybrian2 did with this edit) is not the way we do things around here. Nor is changing the date and removing the existing source without providing a replacement source. Whichever date goes in the article, it must be sourced in the article (and not on a user talk page thread) to the book that actually gives that date; the new date and new source should preferably go in on the same edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicite and London Gazette

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

"Not in source"

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

@Retrohead: From WP:V: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." I had looked at both pages of the linked doc, and the quote appears on neither of them, and so they do not directly support the material. I do see where it says "Read more of this interview at chicagotribune.com/gregkot."; but that isn't a link. If I put chicagotribune.com/gregkot into my browser URL bar, I get redirected to http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/kot/ which is a page about Prince and a few other people, nothing to do with Megadeth at all.

The link in the ref needs to go to the page where the quote actually appears. Readers must not be expected to follow a trail. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I offered you a copy of the article in electronic form so you can verify the content. When I updated the quote in November 2013, the quote was in the link. Obviously the Chicago Tribune staff cut it off in order readers to purchase the printed edition of the newspaper. I'm not savvy with links to Wiki policies, but I'm sure I've read somewhere that not all printed media is available, but that not necessarily means that sourced content is false.--Retrohead (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Occasionally links go stale. In such cases we have several options (see WP:DEADLINK). When the website has moved the content somewhere else within the same site, we can simply amend the URL in the ref to point to the new location; if it does not appear on that website at all, we can use a web archiving service and link through the |archiveurl= parameter. If another source offers the same material as the original source, we can use that - either as a second ref, or replacing the original ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that your last edit on Megadeth was correct. The quote should be sourced with the original newspaper which published it→the Chicago Tribune. The parameter clearly says the access date was November 17, 2013, which means the quote was there that day. In case the reader has trouble verifying the reference, he can contact me (or I'll step in since I'm watching the page), and I'll help him check the source.--Retrohead (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We can't expect our readers to contact a specific editor - or even to know which editor to contact. WP:V is satisfied if the quoted material appears in the source. If you really want the Chicago Tribune article to be used as a source, please locate an archive copy on a web archiving service that may be used to populate |archiveurl= and |archivedate=. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That was my original thought. Any idea where to find the older version of the url? And hand on heart, the unauthorized Victoria Advocate article hardly seems like a FA-quality source.--Retrohead (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is unauthorised. It begins "By Greg Kot Chicago Tribune (MCT)", so we have author, where it was first published, and the agency it was obtained through - MCT being McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. Lots of newspapers obtain their material through agencies, particularly when they can't afford to keep in-house reporters on the spot. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It clearly mirrors the Chicago Tribune, and doesn't bring anything new to the table. According to me, it is always better to have the original publisher at hand than some fourth-party coverage. By the way, Greg Kot is journalist from the Chicago Tribune, not from Victoria Advocate.--Retrohead (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I say otherwise? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This entire discussion is a bit silly. If the point of your tag "not in source" was to verify the existence of Mustaine's quote, I think now you have done it. Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, if I've read the quote myself in book or newspaper, which I did, I'm not obligated to provide you a copy of the article, but did it anyway.--Retrohead (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Silly? This revert was silly, because the page once again fails WP:V, and so if it should come up at WP:FAR, it would be delisted because it no longer satisfies WP:FACR criterion 1c. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is in the newspaper. It is a printed source, which means I'm not even suppose to give you a link, as long as I cite the date and article title. And it certainly does not fail the verifiability criteria. The are numerous book citations present in the article without a direct link, so I guess that would also fail?--Retrohead (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not complaining about book citations. The citation in question has no page number (which one would expect for a print source) but it does have a URL, which means that you're giving an online source; this is reinforced by the presence of an access date (November 17, 2013) that is more than three years later than the cover date (August 15, 2010). It's clearly an online source that is being cited, so when somebody clicks on the link to view that source, they expect to find that it supports the quote. In its present form, it doesn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that's why we have the "access date" field, so the reader can reckon that the quote was there on November 17, 2013. If you do a review on all online references, surely you'll find other anomalies. We can argue all day about the Chicago Tribune versus Victoria Advocate option, but how is that going to improve the article? If your intention was to verify whether there was "sophomore" in Mustaine's statement, have you verified it?--Retrohead (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Trains membership list

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

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

Ah, I'd not seen that they were unregistered. I think that I shall go back through the page history to see who added them. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was Hym411, but renamed to -revi. — revi^{^} 16:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

and here is HPeterswald - clearly a typo for Hpeterswald. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thewellman: Two amendments made: see fix for HPeterswald and fix for Hym411. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems an optimal update. Thank you. I noticed we share a Lancashire background. My great-grandmother (1854-1939) was born in Liverpool. Her mother was Jemima Dawson of Liverpool, and her father was a Canadian master of a trans-Atlantic schooner. My paternal grandmother was born in Prince Edward Island, but her father's family of shipwrights moved to Boston when the Canadian wooden shipbuilding industry collapsed in the late 19th century. Thewellman (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Rollback on CND page?

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

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

They were good-faith spellcheck edits by a new user almost certainly unfamiliar with MOS:ENGVAR - not WP:ROLLBACKable, but they were WP:UNDOable. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd not realised I could undo multiple edits from the diff summary. Robevans123 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

User 86.3.154.114

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

Could you assist?

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

What is the image name, and which page is it on? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The exact location is on the article for Wikipedia in its Section 5 for "Language editions" for the nice version of what the graph could/should look like. The giant graph taking up visual space is at Section 9.4 on that page with the title "Wikiprojects...". Tipping the big graph sideways looks like it would save much visual graph space. FelixRosch (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The bar chart at Wikipedia#Language editions is {{Largest Wikipedias/graph}}. In Wikipedia#Wikiprojects and assessment of importance, I assume that you mean the bit that begins

{{ #invoke:Chart | bar chart
| height = 700
| width = 800

That begins #invoke:, so it is a Lua module, specifically Module:Chart. I do not touch Lua modules; I have explained elsewhere why not, and other people (like Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs) and Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs)) are getting tired of my reasons. Quite simply: I (and many other people) do not understand how they do what they do, and it is damn-near impossible to work out what the valid parameters are, so there isn't a chance in hell that I know how to turn it sideways. If you look at the edit history for that module, the same name - קיפודנחש (talk · contribs) - comes up against 96% of the edits. That is a good indication that only one person actually understands the module; therefore, that is the person to ask. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and I left a message there. On a separate issue at Talk:Artificial Intelligence, there appears to be a poorly formed RfC which a number of editors have flagged as being poorly formed. Its format has also been altered midway after it started while running. Could I ask you to take a quick look to see if it is ill-formed and possibly make a suggestion to avoid the lost editor time there. My thought was to start a Talk discussion there as soon as possible for pursuing a page upgrade there once the RfC is finished/done. FelixRosch (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that I have been named three times at Talk:Artificial Intelligence - all by yourself. I also see that you are the only person who has described the RFC as "poorly formed" - seven times in all. It is only fair for me to disclose that yesterday I responded to CharlesGillingham (talk · contribs) on what I can only assume is the same matter at WP:VPM#Help with a difficult editor. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Module:Chart does not currently support turning the graph sideways. The sideways graph above is more-or-less produced by hand. Perhaps קיפודנחש could add the functionality. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

just setting the record straight: Module:Chart uses "cheap tricks" to generate graphs using pure html/css, which is not really meant for this kind of stuff. the correct technical solution, IMO, is using either html5 construct called "canvas" or inline SVG. unfortunately, wikipedia wikitext parser blocks both, so these can't be used ATM.

the third-best option is to utilize the plotting capabilities of "easytimeline" extension. lua/scribunto is ideal tool to allow convenient parameter passing (the graph data, colors, size etc.), and for converting the data to the complex and complicated syntax used by easytimeline. unfortunately, i do not have the bandwidth to take this not-insignificant project ATM, so i left a request for other people versed in scribunto to try to tackle it. see Wikipedia:Lua requests#overhaul Module:Chart. hopefully, some kind soul with the right aptitude and time will decide this is worth doing. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose; Both the other editors have made constructive comments on the graphs and maybe you could re-evaluate the graphs for possible improvement or suggestion for improvement. If the graph problem is too complex, then I noticed that the top of the big graph (the over 250K region) is completely unused and perhaps a 'quick' fix would simply drop the unused top part if this is easy to do (outside my domain). This would save about 20% of the visual space used. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not touching this. I already said that it's not my area. I really don't know why you came to me in the first place: I've never edited either the Wikipedia page or the {{Largest Wikipedias/graph}} template; nor have I created graphs for use on other pages; and my Lua edits are few, and consist mainly of reversions - only one wasn't a revert, and that had been written by somebody else. To see the images that I have created, see User:Redrose64#Images - not one of them is a graph. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Help of displacement of Semi - protection

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

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

Your blocking of the same-sex marriage template is unwarranted

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

I explained at Template talk:Same-sex unions#Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2014 why. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And I've responded by explaining (with sources including the judgement if the court) why Alaska should, in my view, be added. When your able I'd love to get a reply. Appreciations in advance. Jono52795 (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't prejudice against Alaska. I have again replied at Template talk:Same-sex unions#Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps protection could be removed from this template now. It's been three days. A week seems excessive, and the incident that initiated the protection is over (Idaho has full marriage equality now). http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/10/15/3429228/idaho-counties-begin-issuing-same.html?sp=/99/1687/&ihp=1 http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/10/idaho-begins-issuing-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples/ Tinmanic (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not take it well when no less than five edit requests (not counting this thread) are submitted all requesting basically the same thing. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Others don't take it well when you block legitimate edits to an article that has been surprisingly civil considering the charged nature of the subject. You seem to have overstepped your bounds considerably. May I remind you that you do not OWN the article. DB (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not claiming ownership. I'm trying to discourage the increasing tendency to pointless edit-and-revert which has been happening on that template for some months. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even referring to the protection, which may or may not be necessary. I'm referring to the specific case of Idaho. Gov. Otter has explicitly stated he will not appeal the ruling and marriage licenses have been issued to gay couples as of today. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/14/us-usa-gaymarriage-idaho-idUSKCN0I32SX20141014, http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marriage-developments-idaho-couples-marry-26219293. The only way this would change again is if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that the bans are constitutional. However, if you went by that standard, then every single state that has had a ban overturned at the federal level and not the state level would have to be modified. DB (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Rreagan007

1. Nothing on Wikipedia is a time-sensitive matter. Wikipedia is not a matter of life and death.
2. People have real lives and live in different time-zones. As Redrose64's user page states, he lives in England, thus is probably asleep.
3. The template is protected, but any admin can edit it. The proper thing is to is add a "Template-protected edit request" to the template's talk page. This has already been done.
4. Discussion should be on the template's talk page and not here. This is about the template, not Redrose. Also good for other people to see what has been going on, say an uninvolved admin responding to a protected edit request.

Bgwhite (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite

1. I completely disagree. The deadline is now.
2. He was clearly awake and responding earlier, stubbornly refusing to make the necessary changes. So him (possibly) being asleep now is no excuse.
3. Yes, and it's taking far too long to get resolved. It should have been changed by now.
4. I already commented on the talk page. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate with me leaving a message here as well.

Rreagan007 (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

@NatGertler and Rreagan007: Redrose has in no way asserted any ownership. The page has been protected. It was protected because of edit warring on if * should be allowed or not. Other editors do not want it. Redrose has followed standard procedure for an edit war. ANY admin can edit it. The edit template request goes into a general forum in which ANY admin can respond and in which one did. The deadline is now is an essay and not policy or guidance. Again, this is not life or death. Again, all editors have real lives and are not on Wikipedia 24-hours a day.

Both of you, stop editing here as this is not the place. Stop with accusations. I see shouting and threats on other pages about this. Always, assume good faith. Follow proper procedure... Dispute resolution or request third opinion is what you do next. I've already had to deal with an editor getting death threats today and unfortunately, they gave where he lives in the threat. Stay calm. Bgwhite (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite:There is overwhelming consensus for this change, so it should be made. As far as I am aware, I am following Wikipedia procedures. I have not shouted or made any threats, so perhaps it is you who should assume good faith. And I will stop responding to you here when you stop responding to me here. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Thank you for your replies above. As you surmise, I was asleep; but only for part of the time. I logged out shortly before 20:00 (UTC) and since then have not been at the computer, but have been doing other things, I won't bore you with details. After a busy day, I came back at 18:30 to find a whole heap of bad stuff here, at Template talk:Same-sex unions, and to cap it all, this.

@DB, Difbobatl, NatGertler, and Rreagan007: Comments like "please remove the asterisk from Idaho immediately from this template. This is a time-sensitive matter, and any further delay is unacceptable"; "The deadline is now"; or "him (possibly) being asleep now is no excuse" imply that you are certain that I was sitting at the computer, and monitoring this page/my notifications/my watchlist at the time. I wasn't. Being asleep on duty is a crime in the armed forces, and a disciplinary matter in several other jobs, but it is not on Wikipedia. Maybe I was asleep. Maybe I was watching TV. Or maybe having dinner. Maybe walking the dog. Or none of the above. You don't know, and you cannot expect me to be on call 24/7. Regarding "forego your WP:OWNERSHIP of the page and pass it along to some administrator who will not choose to take edit requests personally", I stated above that I do not claim ownership; also other admins are available, as are template editors. The protected edit request system has some pages which list outstanding edit requests, these lists include User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable and Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests, both of which are where pages bearing an open {{edit template-protected}} are listed. Any user with either the admin right or the template-editor user right can monitor those pages and act on the requests; they are not assigned to any specific individual. Other users with the appropriate right are therefore not barred by myself from editing the template; there is no ownership on my part. To make certain that I do not get in the way of any ongoing discussions at Template talk:Same-sex unions, I have unwatched that page; but not before I saw some of the very nasty remarks made there about me. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

{replyto|Redrose64} If you look closely you will see that I did not make "nasty" remarks nor was I one of the people referring to time-sensitivity. What is frustrating is that you protected the template, causing this panic to make the simplest changes. I think it is probably best you unwatched the page, which is why I am replying here, but by leaving the protection we still have the problem of efficiently keeping the page up to date. Difbobatl (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Difbobatl, it really doesn't matter. You wouldn't expect Encyclopedia Britannica to update their section on the topic, re-print it, and send it out multiple times a month, would you? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and our content is based on the historical accounts as reported by reputable reporting agencies. If the content is accurate (properly updated, not maliciously malformed) more than once a year, then the readers should consider themselves rewarded by the extra benefit that an online encyclopedia offers. Coming to this user talk page and harassing this administrator about such a topic (which belongs on the topic's talk page) is unacceptable (despite how I may or may not feel about this user's methods or my past interactions with him or her (I'd say we disagree more than agree)). Thank you for your interest in improving this encyclopedia, and let's please get back on track to do that. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Rather odd you included me in your response without actually quoting what I said. I reminded you of the concept of owning articles and said you seemed to be going on a power trip. "any further delay is unacceptable" is a rather childish comment, since obviously a reasonable person would not expect you to be here 24 hours a day editing articles. However, the problem is that you were here and you explicitly rejected the edit, so the excuse of not being around is invalid. Furthermore, if you don't really care that much about it, you could have let another admin deal with it, but again, you chose to go in and reject the proposed edit. If you had just not done anything with the page (including comment) for several days, then yes, the complaints would be unwarranted, but you can't claim absence or indifference when your edit record clearly shows otherwise. DB (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex unions template: Alaska

Could you please update the template...? [2]Prcc27 (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex union legislation

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

'Nother one

Here's another bit of 'nomalous template stuff:

• User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox2

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

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

Sorry, I overlooked this and was then busy. Answered at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 131#Tearing its guts out. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well – well, you do this to me so often that I'm just about at the end of my... (now where did that TIC smiley go? Ah, here it is!) L8R G8R – Paine  05:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Redirect template has been Lua-ised. This means that I can no longer offer support for it; accordingly, I've unwatched it. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy

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

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

In my edit summary I included a link to MOS:DABMENTION. That says "If the title is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic.". There is no mention of any book titled Conspiracy at J. Robert King; therefore, that page should not be linked from Conspiracy. Since that was the only link on the line, the line should be removed per MOS:DABENTRY "An entry with no links at all is useless for further navigation". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it; however if you would also read from that same page that you linked to. "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." Now I am not saying that my way is right only that just because my edit disagrees with the "guideline" page that does not by definition make it wrong. The point that I come back to is the courteousness or lack thereof of your revert. Keep in mind that other editors respond better to civility, myself included. If you take a gander at Civility you will read "Explain yourself. Not sufficiently explaining edits can be perceived as uncivil, whether that's the editor's intention or not. Use good edit summaries, and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space or if a more substantive debate is likely to be needed." I emphasize and use the talk page if the edit summary doesn't provide enough space... In my years of editing and communication with other editors, I have always found it to be extremely beneficial in reverts or any change that even hints at controversy to talk on the user's talk page not just on the edit summary. I explain what, why, etc of my edits or reverts. Rarely when I do this are there problems, and rarely when people do this to me are there problems. I have been tweaking a lot of DAB's lately and two have been reverted. Conspiracy and another. With Conspiracy, there was not a lot of information given other than a link that I had to figure out exactly what it meant. I also immediately took a defensive stance. The "other" was accompanied by a pleasant message on my talk page, I replied and before any further edits, both parties agreed what was best. Back to Conspiracy. Now, I initially would not have instigated the talk, as if the reverter "you" does not have time to "talk" to me then vice versa. I would have reverted and done what I felt was correct and the solution would have probably been further away, especially if I couldn't ferret out what you meant. I am not trying to be critical, just to be critical, but to help. The bottom line, I assume, is that we both want to improve the Wiki, and to do so efficiently requires open communication. Thanks speednat (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Template:Same-sex unions

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

@Rrius: It was indeed protected because of the Idaho dispute, which no longer exists; but it is now apparent that a similar controversy now exists regarding Alaska. I am reluctant to lift the prot before it expires, but as long as this is hanging over me, I am not touching that template. If another admin wishes to unprotect the page, I won't object. Feel free to file a request at WP:RFPU. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy over Alaska. Cite, please? Tinmanic (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tinmanic: The very fact that this thread goes contrary to this thread, and the fact that this thread was raised at all should be sufficient "cite". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That first link is from October 16, and that second link is from October 12. On October 12, a federal district court judge found Alaska's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, so marriages became legal there, warranting a template change. On October 13, marriages began. On October 16, the Ninth Circuit, which is the appellate body over the U.S. district court for Alaska, granted a stay at the request of Alaska state officials, warranting another template change. There is no Wikipedia controversy, merely changing circumstances. Wikipedia articles and templates are supposed to kept up to date. Respectfully, you do not seem to understand U.S. same-sex marriage legal developments or U.S. legal procedure, which is why your attempts to administrate this page have troubled so many people. Tinmanic (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because there are "contrary threads" doesn't mean there is any controversy over Alaska. Same-sex marriage became legal in Alaska, the next day a license was issued to a same-sex couple in Barrow, then the ruling was stayed. This means that Alaska should be in the "previously performed" column. So to be fair, the threads are being updated as the situation with Alaska evolves, they are not contradicting each other. Prcc27 (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC regarding you

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

@Hammersoft: I thank you for the note, even though it arrived almost twenty hours after the RFC/U about me was raised at 20:06. It is somewhat puzzling that Difbobatl (talk · contribs) and Tinmanic (talk · contribs), who apparently raised that RFC/U, did not see fit to notify me at the time (as required by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance#Listing); nor did AnotherOnymous (talk · contribs), Dralwik (talk · contribs), Fry1989 (talk · contribs), Jono52795 (talk · contribs), Kumorifox (talk · contribs), NatGertler (talk · contribs), Prcc27 (talk · contribs), Rreagan007 (talk · contribs), Shereth (talk · contribs), Swifty819 (talk · contribs), or Thegreyanomaly (talk · contribs), all of whom posted there before your notification here. Some of these names are unknown to me; I do not recall interacting with them before. Investigating, I also find that the RFC/U was not added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList (also required by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance#Listing) until 01:52. It seems as if I was being discussed behind my back: this is not the Wikipedia way. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I had assumed that the parties initiating the RfC had done their due diligence and already notified you. Also you may notice that my comments there were not meant to endorse the RfC in any way but express some skepticism that it was necessary at all. Shereth 19:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not notifying you via your Talk page -- this was my first time doing an RfC and I didn't know it was required. I had assumed you were aware of it since I mentioned it on the Talk page for the template. Tinmanic (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you mean this edit? I must have missed it this evening: when I saw that over fifty edits had been made to that page since I logged out last night, I decided not to go through them one-by-one, but looked at them all as a group; so some of the details will have passed me by. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I too would like to apologize. I thought that the procedures had already been followed by Tinmanic, who as you see was trying his best with a complicated procedure that we've (thankfully) never had to use before. Difbobatl (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've only ever read RfCs, and have never been asked to actually reply to or get involved in one. I was under the impression that either the initiating editors had notified you, or that you would have been pinged when the RfC was started. It even took me a while to figure out where to comment. I'd like to apologize for the fact that no one notified you. Swifty819 (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Redrose64, I think it better to ascribe to a mistake what could be ascribed to malice. If I'm correct, it was the first time either of these initiating editors have ever filed an RfC. They're learning, as we all have and hopefully will. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

An apology from me

	An apology from me
	I want to apologise to you after my hasty actions and words regarding your protection of the same-sex marriage template. I was way out of line, your actions were warranted, and I understand why you acted the way you did. I am really sorry. Please continue your great work on making Wikipedia a good source of information for everyone. Kumorifox (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) It's times like these that make being an admin so attractive. – Paine 

An apology

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

London 87

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

 Done you missed Template:UK Wikipedia meetups and Wikipedia:Meetup/UK. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, there are an excessive number of these templates if you ask me. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Didcot Power Station Fire

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

I saw the report on News at Ten yesterday. Didcot "B" power station, which is at 51.6250°N 1.2683°W / 51.6250; -1.2683 (Didcot "B" power station), is just over a mile from my house. I can't see it because of trees and houses. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Leutha: It seems that the fire was in one of the cooling towers, the sixth one from the south-western end of the eastern group (of 15 towers); that cooling tower is at 51.62322°N 1.27026°W / 51.62322; -1.27026 (Didcot "B" power station) - it spread to the two each side. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

(talk page stalker) Fixed. Pinging Dontreader. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Status?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations § Status?

 – Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

English South Coast Meetup

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

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

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

@Redrose64: Thats OK. Maybe next time then. :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Award 4 U

• 
  100,000 Edit Star

awarded to Redrose64 for joining an exclusive Wikipedia club
Vjmlhds (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Biographical dictionaries

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

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

Archive

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

No, I won't. It's set to archive threads more than three months old automatically; and this is happening as necessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that the first five sections on this page may not be archiving because they're undated, and the sixth is from Rich from April. GoingBatty (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about those. Periodically I delete things like {{talkback}} and move the rest elsewhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

London 87

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

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

HIDE_PARAMETER

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

If you have a moment

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

I don't know the name; but then I've not read 99% of DWM or 75% of TNA. Try WT:WHO. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

During the Dalekmania of the mid sixties he was a character in a Dalek comic strip (which did not include the Doctor) that ran in the Radio Times (I think). I just wonder what sort torturous set of redirects occurred for the link to wind up leading the reference about SA playing DP. I'll post this there. Thanks for your time and enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 20:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

These strips titled "The Daleks" - there's an example on the back of

• Bentham, Jeremy (1986). Doctor Who: The Early Years. London: W.H. Allen. ISBN 0-491-03612-4.

- were not in RT but a childrens' comic, I think it was called TV Century 21 at the time, but by the time that I became aware of it, had become TV21 (in the 1960s and 1970s, there were three or four publishers of children's comics in the UK, and most were in the habit of launching new comics every few months and when sales dropped after 18 months to three years, they were either relaunched under a different name or merged with another title. Sometimes strips were carried over into the new publication, but not always). Like most comics of the period (right down to the 1980s), TV21 was mostly black-and-white, with four or perhaps eight (but no more) of the 20 pages in full colour, because of the cost. "The Daleks" was full-colour, and was a single-page strip, so would probably have been on the back cover (rather than the centre pages that a two-page full-colour item would have got). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to get all the info that I knew once but has gotten pushed out by time and events :-) You are probably aware that his pic turned up in "Time Heist" and that episodes article is where I discovered the odd redirect. Have you picked this up yet? As I picked up the DVDs over the years they had several ongoing documentaries - including one for the comics - and I wondered if I was going to have to go through them one by one and write by hand which DVDs had what. Thanks goodness Paul Smith did it for me. I haven't picked it up yet as it has to get in line behind other items including Ideal. Yes it is still on the list but it got pushed back over a snafu over the 50th Anniversary special box set. I won't bore you with the detail :-( Best regards and thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 21:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've not got that book. The BBC are currently plugging this one in the (very limited) advertising space that occasionally comes up after related progs. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have seen that one at Amazon UK. I used to get all of the ones like that back in the 80s and 90s. If it is anything like this one, which I did buy, it is geared towards the younger reader (come to think of it that was me back then-heehee) mostly pics and in-universe info. I know I linked to if for you before but this was the one that I was happy to add to my library. MarnetteD|Talk 21:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

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

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

Regarding my edit on Wikipedia:Protection policy

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

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

Quintinshill

Moved to Talk:Quintinshill rail disaster § Centenary TfA?

 – Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback Request Service

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