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).

Enjoy!

		Happy 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

Happy New Year!

Dear Redrose64,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Template talk:WikiProject Biography

Hi Redrose64, quick message. On Template talk:WikiProject Biography, I removed the category not because I had been lazy and just not fixed the issue, I just hadn't realised that it might have been there because someone had posted a link to it in the talk. I had assumed it was just a one-time problem with the actual template itself at the top of the talk page, and so I could fix that by removing the category. I used hot cat, so didn't actually see what I had deleted. I should have checked changes before pressing to save my edit. I apologise, I just wanted to clear any misunderstanding. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk)

Sailing from Holyhead?

Where can you sail to by Stena Line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 April 2015

Season's Greetings

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)

VarunFEB2003 and template signatures.

WP:Help desk#Sign issue

regarding Talk:Severus Snape and the Marauders

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fact-now

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

ANI notice

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

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

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

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

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

Some questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A modest proposal

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

Drafting an RFC

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

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

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

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

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

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

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

Administrator changes

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

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Village Pump RFC

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

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

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

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

Your reverts to my edits

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

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

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

Redhill to Tonbridge Line

Despite massive opposition at the first RM, Dicklyon sneaked in a second RM just days later, and we've now go a dashed, non-capitalised title for the Redhill to Tonbridge Line article. There is also another mass-RM request running (notice posted at WT:UKT). This is getting well beyond WP:DISRUPTIVE now. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Was this RM not advertised, posted, and discussed enough on the project talk page and other places? What are you saying about "sneaked"? And where is this opposition you refer to? Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Call me suspicious but User:Dicklyon I am beginning to think you are playing a game. The world and his neighbour knows that hyphens were never, used when referring to these lines. It is interesting to see you plotting more disruption on Stanton's talk page. All this rubbish will have to reverted eventually- would you like to start now, as this is a great timewaster for all of us. As I said before, I would love to have a face to face chat over a beer when you make a site visit to Kent, or Derbyshire. But you have been rumbled- I have a lot more to do- please don't get yourself topic banned before you have ad a chance to visit.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I enjoyed the beer and whisky at the White Lion in Tenterden last time I was around there; didn't quite make it to Tonbridge, nearly an hour away. Nothing about hyphens is going on here, though (though some books may use a hyphen to represent the role of the en dash; and some that look like hyphen in the GBS snippets really are dashes, like this one and this one and this one). Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: it can be arranged. There's a meetup in London this coming Sunday; ClemRutter (talk · contribs) has signed up, I'll be there, and Mjroots (talk · contribs) has also said yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry; maybe in Aug/Sept I'll be in your part of the world next. Dicklyon (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I wont by at the August one- but do let us know when you are over- a get together is a must. I fell for the puzzles you posted- and all the examples actually referred to the same piece of track but in different contexts, which makes it so important that you get the capitalisation and hyphenation right. Since you messed around with the Glossop Line, I have been looking carefully at how different printed sources tackle the problem. We are not the only ones to get it wrong.

Generally in the title case (of a book, magazine, Hansard legal document) it is all upcapped and hyphen free, but when in that book, the piece of track between two station is mentioned, then (and I assume it is correct) the word line is down capped and hyphens may be introduced. I have seen a lot of inconsistences within single paragraphs - where the sub-ed was not just confused but lazy. But no source seems to get that right- but we can.

In our article tiles we must upcap, route templates too, and within the templates upcapping individual lines. For chords mentioned in the article downcapping may be correct- but the official name of the chord should be considered to be a title. Within a wikitable the hyphen may replace the word and, or to. The Glossop Line was particularly difficult to get right referring as it does to the remaining western section of the Woodhead Line, but terminating in Glossop. The chord between Dinting and Glossop is the Glossop line (down capped), the chord between Glosssop and Hadfield being the Glossop and Hadfield Line (upcapped or down capped depending on context). Here a hyphen would mean 'and' not 'to'.

A lot of the matches in you puzzle rely on a single publisher, Oakwood Press from around 1947. I find they style contrary to the conventions at the time- it worked for them, but I can't reconcile myself with the idea that the decision of one editor should be a binding precedent for us. The thought of a line of beer pumps however beckons.... too bad that it wont be till September that we can test each one of them out.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Clem, I'm having trouble following your train of thought here. You have read WP:NCCAPS, right? We would generally not do our article titles any differently from the same terms in text (except for the initial cap, as in starting a sentence). I agree that when other take a term and make a title of it they do tend to capitalize most or all of the words, and do tend to omit hyphens that they would have used in text; but Wikipedia doesn't do that. And that thing you're calling a hyphen between places is an en dash. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this one. Having difficulty with my line of thought? I suppose if you haven't been wrestling with this problem since 2007, then you would have a bit of catching up to do. Going back to Mandrusses last edit Naming_conventions_(capitalization) January 2016 WP:NCCAPS you will see that we take authority from Fowlers 3rd edition. In the paragraph on capitals (p=128) section 2, in my edition, we see quite clearly Parts of recognised should be capitalised- and examples are given of Addison Walk (In Magdelen College Oxford), Regent Street, London Road (if official name) but the London road (thats leading to London). Elsewhere I ave given examples of the Suez Canal, the Kiel Canal, the Panama Canal. You really are going out on a limb to suggest that the Glossop Line, a similar linear geographical feature is qualitatively different. I wish I could give you some further guidance but online sources are likes hens teeth and when you find one it is littered with errors, or uses the two forms (official name)& (leading to) many times in the same text often contradicting Fowler. That's where we started ten years ago- and all that seems to have changed is the WP:NCCAPS is less clear and no longer names its sources. ClemRutter (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Still not following. What Mandruss edit? What does Fowler have to do with this? And what about the clear consistent capitalization of those canals in sources, very unlike the lines? We are not in the business of making up proper names (or shouldn't be, though in the UK rail lines we have been). Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just follow the link ! Mandruss's last edit on Naming_conventions_(capitalization) January 2016.:-) ClemRutter (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I had done so, but it wasn't a diff. I suppose you mean this. Not clear to me what difference it makes; care to elaborate? Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You are playing games again. Stay on focus, just follow the link ! Mandruss's last edit on Naming_conventions_(capitalization) January 2016- now read throroughly the lead- and particularly paragraph 4. You asked me directly whether I had read Just follow the link ! WP:NCCAPS- yes I have, many times- I have directed you back to a safe version as the current version is less clear and no longer names its sources. ClemRutter (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Bogie#Railway

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

The Queen Album

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

High Speed Train?

In this revert, is it the case, or the hyphen, or both? What's the basis for the proper-name treatment of High Speed Train here? Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

High Speed Train is the expansion of the acronym HST, and has been capitalised that way for over forty years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see lots of places where it's capped in defining the acronym HST; but not much otherwise. We don't usually cap things just for acronym definition, and I don't find evidence in sources that High Speed Train stands alone as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

See news and books, where lowercase hyphenated is pretty common, and caps without the defining of HST is not. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There are many types of high-speed train (which redirects to High-speed rail), whereas High Speed Train refers to the specific class of British train (redirecting to InterCity 125). --David Biddulph (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I see it redirects there, and that's the intended meaning when it's capped. But I still don't see why it's capped, as it does not appear to be a proper name, except perhaps in the context of High Speed Train Project, which appears to be where this comes from. Shouldn't we just link Intercity 125 when that's what we mean, and downcase it otherwise? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As David Biddulph points out, the difference is between the generic and the specific. There is a good example of the distinction in

• Chacksfield, John E. (2004). Ron Jarvis: From Midland Compound to the HST. The Oakwood Library of Railway History. Usk: Oakwood Press. ISBN 0-85361-618-3. OL130.

where on page 149 we find

There was one glimmer of hope on the horizon, this being the advent of the High Speed Train project. Now that running of trains at speeds up to 100 mph was becoming commonplace and, with the increasing competition from the airlines, the case for a frequent high-speed train service became paramount.

When you have two Class 43 power cars [locomotives] flanking up to nine Mark 3 coaches, that is a High Speed Train, and that is how British Rail referred to them in most documents (in the early days of the project, it was High Speed Diesel Train). The term "Inter-City 125" (capitalised and hyphenated thus) was a slogan thought up by BR's marketing team for use on the High Speed Train, and painted on the sides in the early years; it is not the name of the type of train. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) has carried out much research on the matter, having lived within cycling distance of Derby Public Library for some years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've got half a bookshelf dedicated to the HST. It's one of those articles I've been meaning to overhaul for years (and it certainly needs it!), and it's always annoyed me that the article is titled IC125 rather than HST. But regardless, High Speed Train is its name. The name (unhyphenated, with caps) doesn't refer to trains travelling at high speed in general but to this particular train. It's as much a proper noun as ... St Paul's Cathedral. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that Chacksfield has "High Speed Train project". Most books cap Project in that context (except for one about the California project, oddly). Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I do see a few with a better search, though lowercase and all-uppercase and various hyphenated all make good showings, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: It seems that the only other place in the Chacksfield book to use the phrase has it in "prototype High Speed train (HST)" with the lowercase train (in the Foreword, p. 4). I'd like to know what some of those other books do. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Just one more of these inane and deliberately provoking moves or renames and I will raise another thread at ANI, seeking a specific topic ban to prevent you from making any more. Your behaviour here is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  Huh? Did I move or rename anything? Am I not allowed even a modestly bold edit now and again? Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not when your renames are:

• Simplistic and slavish enforcements of a standardised styleguide
• Ignorant of any subject knowledge
• Obviously contentious, given your past track record with the scope of this (and maybe other) projects.

A certain amount of ignorance for specific narrow subjects is always expected and excusable, but a wiser editor might see that as a reason for caution. You evidently do not, and you have had it made clearly obvious how much you have annoyed project members who do have some familiarity with the subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't do any renames. Is bypassing a redirect all that objectionable now? Did I get contentious about it when it was reverted? No and no. And I wasn't ignorant; I had already seen that sources speak of a High Speed Train Project and commonly define the acronym HST with High Speed Train. Perhaps I'm ignorant of why people still want to cap High Speed Train on its own, which sources don't much. Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a diff at the top of the section: you replaced High Speed Train with high-speed train. Then when you were reverted over that, you went on to start renaming things altogether. Seemingly you have a compulsion to make changes; any changes, just to annoy other editors. Or else you went immediately from not even recognising a HST as one specific form of "train at high speed", through to making value judgements as to whether IC125 or HST is the better term, against project members who do have such knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can't accept my edits for what they are, and have to take them as attacks on your person. Get over that. It's not about you. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

And yes I still have a hard time accepting that "A High Speed Train ..." can be accepted as correct (because "A" before a proper name seldom is), but I'm not warring about it, am I? Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A Land Rover, a Boeing, a Cadillac, ...? --David Biddulph (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, people do put "A" before trademarks, even though it's not strictly correct. "A High Speed Train train" would be more correct, but I can see why we wouldn't go there (while "an HST train" is perfectly common). Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

For example, see that most web hits are either lowercase or are associated with defining HST (the exception being this highly-specialized HST group). Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

speedy review

Hi dear Admin. please check and review this user editions

all of his editions are vandalism like this or this or this or change or delete paragraphs, numbers or words in articles

also he delete all notifications in his talk page like this

thank you Modern Sciences (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences: In what way do those edits count as vandalism? This is a content dispute; so have these changes been discussed at the talk pages of the articles (Talk:Shusha massacre; Talk:Karabakh horse; Talk:Shelling of Stepanakert respectively)? If not, why not? Also, removing notices from a user's own talk page is not a crime. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I menthined only some example of this user not all of them,

For example deleting context that have sources is not vandalism this act starrt from this edition or deleting context that have resources and replacing with ???

this is clearly vandalism, user clear one language from article lead???Modern Sciences (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, since as Boaqua (talk · contribs) correctly states, the number of fatalities is covered in the article text, in the Casualties section. There should not be that level of detail in the infobox, which is for summarising key points of the article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Davidson

Hi there, in April 2015, you removed my edit on Ruth Davidson's page regarding her breaking her back during Officer Training. I was her training officer at the time and thus know very well that she received her injury at the Army officer Selection Board at Westbury not at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst at Camberley. The issue is that I cannot provide a citation for this as it would be inappropriate and not possible to provide her medical documentation. I could however provide a link to AOSB at Westbury? The problem is that Conservative political materials are cited which are inaccurate. Do you think I can edit and cite a link to Westbury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenith69uk (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Zenith69uk: I made three edits to that article in April 2015, all were reverts - the edits that I reverted were made at: 18:01, 9 April 2015; 22:16, 21 April 2015; and 11:59, 24 April 2015. All three of these edits removed sourced content together with its source, replacing it with unsourced content; my reverts restored the status quo. Edit summaries like "this is a personal record in can be referenced but if Ms Davidson's office needs to chat then its Maj Davidson editing" and "A source cannot be supplied from the public domain. Ms Davidson did not attend RMAS as she injured herself during assessment." do not satisfy the core content policy of verifiability (please note the phrase "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material"). I have challenged it: it is now up to you to provide a satisfactory source. Moreover, any edit of that nature must not just satisfy the verifiability policy, but also another core content policy, that of no original research; together with the policy on living persons.

By AOSB, I assume that you mean the Army Officer Selection Board, so when you say "a link to AOSB at Westbury" what would that link be? If it does not go directly to a page which explicitly mentions the injury, it is unlikely to be acceptable as a source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi

Sorry that my edit[1] to your userpage didn't produce such neat output.

I did it because babelbox categorises you in the non-existent Category:User simple-2>. It was a redkink until I later created the category redirect, so it no longer shows up as a redlink ... but retaining babelbox for this means that you will be a categorised in a category which people cannot navigate to. That doesn't seem much use, but up to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) That sounds rather like a claim to uniqueness then :D O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You can format your userboxes in a block as a section at the end if regular column formatting does not suffice. However, it should be carefully placed the boxes. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Erkinalp9035: I know how to lay out userboxes, thank you. I have been doing that for well over seven years now, and I want them to be in the positions that I placed them in. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that I have created Category:User simple-2, the category no longer clutters up the redlinked category lists. But it's still wrong that the userpage is permanently categorised in a redirect. That doesn't impede cleanup, so I will leave it be ... but I am bemused by the contrast between RedRose64's determination to reinstate this error, and their very reproachful tone whenever any of my edits inadvertently cause an error. It would be nice to see that gap closing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

All I want to do is use {{#babel:en-N|de-1|fr-1|simple-2}} in the manner advised by its documentation. The #babel: system was designed to work in the same manner across all Wikipedias, with no local variation, since that would lead to confusion "why does this work at French Wikipedia but not at English?". If there is perceived to be incorrect categorisation as a result of using the documented syntax, then the categories should be fixed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be usable consistently as you say, but a) its makes no sense on any wikipedia to have multiple levels of "simple", and b) it isn't usable that way.

I had thought that it was a module which could be changed, but had been unable to locate it. Thanks for the pointer to the extension, which ends y confusion about where the code is.

After a little more burrowing, I found the original UCFD discussion[2], but also this later discussion: WP:CFD 2012 January 9.

That second discussion helpfully points to a Phabricator report[3], where the discussion seems to have come down to the "devs say fix your bots", and nobody following through with the bot owners, and the devs paying no attention to the underlying point that multiple levels of simple is simply unhelpful. That Phabricator discussion seems to have stalled in January 2012, so it's clearly going nowhere.

Oh well. I will re-create the categories, and start a CFD on whether to just give up on any chance of the underlying issue being resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

On seconds thoughts, sod it. I will just leave it as a populated redirect. If someone else wants to fix it, that's fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"rfc top" and "rfc bottom"

Shall I or you address the "rfcid" bot issue with template:rfc top and template:rfc bottom to WP:VPT? --George Ho (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: The problem isn't that the |rfcid= parameter is being added to templates that don't have any use for it (if that were all that was happening then it would be harmless), but that Legobot (talk · contribs) is assuming that the five-character sequence "{{rfc" indicates the start of an open RfC discussion. That bot, like almost all other bots, is outside everybody's control except for its botop. In this case the botop is Legoktm (talk · contribs), upon whom we're dependent for a fix. There is nothing that VPT can do other than analyse the problem, which I have been doing for about a year now. I have explained the problem, at length, on various talk pages: most recently at User talk:Legoktm#Legobot/Rfc template interaction question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

...Okay. I'll use the "closed rfc top/bottom" for now until the bot matter is resolved. Also, I know what you mean, especially by rereading Template talk:Rfc top. And would substituting be effective? George Ho (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Substing works, but bloats up the page unnecessarily, by a minimum of 983 bytes just to prevent a bot problem. Using the redirects adds just fourteen bytes, prevents the bot problem and is meaningful. In fact, not only is no meaning lost, but the presence of the word "closed" makes it even more clear that discussion is over. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We agree to disagree about the substituting. However, sometimes I think substituting would also prevent potential vandalism and reduce technical issues with the template during transclusion. But what do you think I should do: subst or "closed rfc top"? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

{{closed rfc top}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks [Bradshaw's Guide to Victoria (Australia)]

Dear Redrose 64,

Thanks for making these modifications for me.

Actually, I'd just worked out that I had accidentally placed a full stop at the end of the heading and that that was what was causing me a few problems. I was just about to remove it when I noticed that, kindly, you had already done it.

Regards, Albert Isaacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Isaacs (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:MOVE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Unusual user

Dear Redrose64, I'm sorry to dump you with this but I fear it might be an old friend of yours. This user came to my attention because of an unusual "warning" message that they left for another editor. I wish I'd just ignored it now - it soon became clear that this was not some new innocent user who doesn't quite "get" it. Even just looking at the history of this particular thing (GWR logo in or out of Night Riviera article, threats of "reporting to the moderators", general rudeness etc) I realized that it was almost certainly the same person here and here. Sadly this looks, again on similar behaviours and the continuation of conversations or accusations across accounts, as if it is possibly the blocked user and sockpuppeteer User:Devonexpressbus who I see you have had previous and no doubt very rewarding engagements with. Whether you want to do something with this I leave entirely up to you - that's why they pay you the huge Administrators' Salary after all - but I want nothing more to do with this guy. In a way, I can see a benefit to just leaving him alone and letting him plug away in his own little plastic bubble. I just felt a bit caught out that I approached him as a kind of normal inexperienced editor when I could have done with a health warning sign that said "do not tangle with this well-established [noun of your choice] - it's not worth it". It's the usual two-rules debate, I suppose. Ho hum and thanks, DBaK (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear... I have to go out to work in about 20 minutes, and won't be back until about 20:30. Then it's dinner, TV and bed; up again at 06:30 because I have to leave at 07:10. You could file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Devonexpressbus. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries at all: enjoy your days. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Please see this report by Geeuuare (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish him much joy with it, but I'm jolly glad it's not me ... best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that this user is back here with the usual threats and abuse. He reported Geeuuare at AIV and has been told to try ANI instead. Geeuuare has done absolutely nothing wrong, let alone anything within a mile of vandalism. It's all a bit depressing. DBaK (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(Trying again for Geeuuare DBaK (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Liverpool Street

Quick question, does this crop of edits violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say so. We don't need every little variant; for a station as intensively used as Liverpool Street, anything less frequent than once per hour shouldn't really be included. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sig

Hello red🌹 (how clever is that!) Can you take a look at the signature currently in use here? I was thinking especially that thing you do to it which shows how it appears to the partially-sighted. Since a load of it seems to be missing! Cheers — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 10:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Your link has two terms specifying NaN, so it's defaulting to the most recent edit to that page, and so I'm unsure if you refer to the signature used by Levdr1lp (talk · contribs) or not. Assuming that you do, white text on black is absolutely fine, with its 21:1 contrast ratio, but red on black has a contrast ratio of 5.25:1 which makes it AA Compliant, where we aim (as stated at MOS:CONTRAST, "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible.") for AAA compliance, which would be a ratio of 7.0:1. Levdr1lp can obtain that whilst retaining the red hue and black background by reducing the saturation, and using the colour #FF5E5E which gives a contrast ratio of 7.01:1 and would look like this: Levdr1lp

However, there is also a problem with the "talk" part - it's a link, but it's black (on a pale background). There is no contrast problem here, but it fails something else shown at MOS:CONTRAST, that is, "Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers." which this isn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Redrose64- Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. Just so I'm clear, I need to: 1) change the red color text to a color w/ a higher contrast ratio (greater than 7.01:1) against the black background; and 2) and make sure the talk link is clearly visible as a link. Do I have that right? I had a similar problem a few years ago when my signature markup used shortened hex color codes (3-character instead of 6-character). I thought I had addressed any readability/accessibility issues back then; I hope additional problems haven't persisted since then. Levdr1lp / talk 22:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Redrose64- I've updated my signature. I've substituted orange text in for the red, which raises the contrast ratio against the black background to 8.25:1, and I've added parentheses around the talk link. Are these changes sufficient? Levdr1lp / (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, regarding the talk link, could I underline "talk" w/o parentheses? Levdr1lp / talk 22:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The requirement is not "greater than 7.01:1"; it is greater than or equal to 7.0:1, so exactly 7 is acceptable. The reason that I specified a colour value of #FF5E5E (which has a contrast ratio of 7.01:1) was that if I decrease both the green and blue components of that by the minimum possible, i.e. one unit of brightness (on a scale of 0-255 or 00-FF hex), it gives a colour value of #FF5D5D (which has a contrast ratio of 6.98:1). It's not possible, with a black background and a pure (0°) red hue at maximum lightness, to get a contrast ratio of 7.0:1 exactly, even though that would be our minimum.

Parentheses do not conventionally identify a link, and nor does an underline. The colour should be different from the plain text; and since plain text is black, links should not be black. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for mixing up all acceptable AAA compliance ratios (greater than or equal to 7.0:1), and the specific contrast ratio for the reddish color #FF5E5E against a black background (7.01:1). And I was looking at your own signature's talk page link above when I thought to ask about black-colored links, forgetting that this is, in fact, your talk page (meaning the link appears black & bold here by default). My mistake. Back to my signature, is the following acceptable (user page link orange-on-black contrast ratio of 8.34:1, and talk page link red-on-default-white contrast ratio of 7.04:1)? Levdr1lp / talk 00:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Does the contrast ratio of link color need to be AAA compliant with plain (black) text even though links & plain text are separated by the default-white background? Levdr1lp / talk 01:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, after some tweaking, I think I've created a signature which better complies w/ MOS:CONTRAST. Is this version acceptable? ---> Levdr1lp / talk 03:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes; the contrast is excellent - well within AAA. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Length of Corris Railway

You may be interested in commenting at the discussion on my talk page (or moving the discussion to a more central location). Optimist on the run (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference?

Hello R. I am trying to fix the italics in the DAB title of various Dr Who classic series articles. I found that some display as Title (Doctor Who) and some as Title (Doctor Who). When I added the "Display title" template to The Chase it worked fine. But when I tried to do the same thing on The Reign of Terror and The Rescue it didn't. I am guessing that there is something technical that I am missing so I'm banking on your expertise to steer me in the right direction. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The articles were in Category:Pages with DISPLAYTITLE conflicts. Part way down each article, in the "In print" section, the message was showing. You can only have one {{DISPLAYTITLE}} per article, so if there's one elsewhere (in this case, tucked away in the infobox adjacent to that error message), you need to suppress it. As noted in the second box at the top of {{infobox book}}, the fix is to add |italic title=no to that infobox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you R. I always appreciate the time you take to explain things in detail. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. The Invasion (Doctor Who) has both a book and a soundtrack subsection. I added the "italic title no" command to both but the red "warning" message still appeared in the soundtrack section. So I removed that "display title" template until you have a chance to look at things. Thanks in advance for looking into this. MarnetteD|Talk 20:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Same thing really. If you look at the version that includes your {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, there is the error message . In that section of the current version, edit the section (in proper editor, not with VE) and go straight for Show preview, you will see the message

Warning: Page using Template:Infobox album with unknown parameter "italic title" (this message is shown only in preview).

If you click that link, you'll see that the doc suggests |Italic title=no --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I had added that with this edit but it turns out that it needed a capital "I" - tricky devil :-) I wonder if it is worth taking the time to try and make them uniform. At least I know the diff for future reference. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm annoyed by the comments you have put at the talk. I used the word vandalism not at the article but at the talk because the bloke brought a block from a fr wiki on the table which is an attempt to discredit my person. You included the link of my block on the fr wiki which looks like a personal attack, I take it like it. you did it many times. Stop this and erase these links leading to the fr wiki. what happens on another wiki stays there as it was not a vandalism in any sorts, hence mentioning it is inappropriate. Iennes (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iennes: It was neutral, since I said nothing about you that I did not also say about Koui² (talk · contribs). It appears to me that you don't check these matters carefully enough, since you made this post in response to my notice timed at 22:06, 3 March 2017 - when I had served an almost identical message on Koui² 22:02, 3 March 2017 - that is, four minutes before I posted to your page. The only difference between the two, apart from the timestamps, was that the one that I sent to you lacked the six words "No. You should discuss it; and" that were part of my reply to Koui².

Have you heard the phrase "Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other", or perhaps "It Takes Two to Tango"? For the record, when I saw that you had made this edit, I could have blocked you without warning on the grounds that you had resumed edit-warring on the day that your block for exactly that behaviour expired, but I didn't - instead I removed the disputed phrase, fully-protected the page, and posted an explanatory note on its talk page. Now, it's clear that the two of you have some sort of vendetta going at French Wikipedia - please don't bring it here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand your view but I do consider that it matters otherwise I wouldn't spend time writing about this because I contribute to the article with facts and sources while the other bloke has added nothing. However I would ask you to not add an edit summary anymore like "not a good example" as it is ambigious. Iennes (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

bingo, your edit summary with "not a good example" worked, it was good lobbying, an user has changed his mind. If I lose, I stop contributing on wikipedia. Iennes (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That edit summary was not directed at you, but at Argento Surfer (talk · contribs), whose comment 'The French page uses "sometimes".' I was replying to. What I intended it to mean was that the page at French Wikipedia is not a good example tor Argento Surfer to have used, since it is subject to a very similar dispute, and hence is not stable, so should not be used as precedent.

Wikipedia is not about "winners" and "losers" but about agreement and WP:CONSENSUS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It is time to close that rfc and assess a consensus. Iennes (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Rating articles

Hello, Redrose64 - I've been watching the article on Ferdowsi, and the back-and-forth between two editors, and one of them just made this edit. Can just anyone change the rating of an article like that?  – Corinne (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Technically yes: the importance ratings are decided by each WikiProject for that WikiProject, and for WikiProject Iran, the guide is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran/Assessment#Importance scale (there is a virtually-identical copy at Template:WikiProject Iran#Importance scale). It might be that Ferdowsi (apparently a poet who lived a thousand years ago) is one of the core topics about Iran - I don't know. You could leave a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran/Assessment#Requesting an assessment.

However, some people are under the misapprehension that what is important to them (like the latest group of teenage vocalists) is necessarily of importance to Wikipedia. So one of your two might be studying Ferdowsi for an academic qualification. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64. I understand. In this case, Ferdowsi is one of the leading poets in Persian literature. It just seemed to me, because of the edit summary ("It's just quite obvious"), that the change hadn't been done as a result of consensus or statistics or any other criteria. However, since the topic probably merits a top rating, I'll just leave it.  – Corinne (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

WCML template deleted

It appears that the template that was being used on the West Coast Main Line article has been deleted for some unknown reason and been replaced by the core route only one, despite a complete lack of consensus to do this on the discussion page. Surely this flies against all due processes of wikipedia. Can you use your admin powers to undelete it. Pending a proper discussion. Users can't just force their preferred views when they have no consensus. G-13114 (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@G-13114: I didn't delete it - per WP:DELETE#Deletion review, you should initially discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, on their talk page. Judging by the page logs, it was deleted by RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) because "All meet G7", by which I get the impression that RickinBaltimore felt that WP:CSD#G7 was applicable. I have looked at the page history, and the last edit prior to deletion was the removal of all content and its replacement with the template {{db-g7}} by Pldx1 (talk · contribs) at 13:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC). Since Pldx1 was not the page creator, the G7 criterion was clearly not applicable; more so because Pldx1 was not even a contributor of any kind, their only edit to the page being to blank it and add that template. Have you asked RickinBaltimore why they felt that G7 was applicable here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted a large number of files that were in my own user space. I have absolutely no idea about the reason why the West Coast Main Line template has been deleted as a result of this process. In any case, I can only apologize for any error that I could have done. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy. Yeah that is definitely a mistake on my part. There was a large group of articles tagged for G7, and I removed them in a batch. Unfortunately that was mixed up. I'm going to restore it right now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Now that's what I call doing a Beeching on the WCML! :D — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okehampton, Crediton & Exeter Railway

Just a quick heads up, I declined the A7 because we can probably turn this into an article about the proposed line, moving it away from any business interests, or merging it with London and South Western Railway or whatever the most appropriate article is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Judging by your edit summary, you declined it on the grounds that "A7 does not apply to railways" - but the article is about an organisation, and WP:CSD#A7 specifies three times that it applies to organisations ("people, animals, organizations, web content, events"; "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event"; "web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals"). There is an exception for educational institutions, but not for railways. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I got confused - I know you can't get a "regular" train to Okehampton, and the lack of network redundancy between Exeter and Plymouth can be problematic. However, it takes a lot of ground work to be a railway operator, and I wondered if we could reappropriate the article for something else. Certainly a railway line (ie: the tracks and sleepers) does not meet A7 in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Deprecated latitude= and longitude= in UK disused station infobox

Re: this diff, and you asked where it says that they're deprecated: Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes makes it clear that In August 2016, an RfC established that the individual named coordinates-related parameters in infoboxes (latd or lat_d, etc.) should be deprecated in favor of |coordinates={{Coord}}. Below, it states that The names of the deprecated parameters vary between templates but often include many of the following... Latitude and longitude are included in the bulleted list. In the tracking section you may notice that, within the table, {{Infobox UK disused station}} is included. So, although just including the numbers would be immediately easier (and I agree with you, there), |coordinates={{Coord}} is now the standard. Regards, EP111 (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@EP111: It's Bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, revert. You should at least give me a chance to respond. I am putting together a thread at Wikipedia talk:Coordinates in infoboxes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: OK, thanks for sorting out a new thread. N.b. I didn't consider a response from you to be necessary for my revert, under the circumstances, as weight was in favour of previously established consensus in the RfC. Regards, EP111 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It's now at Wikipedia talk:Coordinates in infoboxes#This is going to create a mess. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm ambivalent to the decision, as I can see favour in both points of view. I'll leave the discussion to others. I'd be grateful if someone could inform me of the outcome. Regards, EP111 (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

EP111, I wrote a long answer and explanation at the project's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oxford meet up

Hello

Do you have an email address I could contact you on regarding the next Oxford meet up?

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmnt (talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wmnt: I do have an email address, and I don't give it out. The meetup page is m:Meetup/Oxford/49. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing links on Delta and the Bannermen

Hi Redrose64, thanks for fixing those odd link issues on Delta and the Bannermen. I'm using the visual editor and having it automatically build links for the article from sources. I'm glad you found and fixed those issues with the numbers being placed inside the ref name (4:) , because I didn't realize they were there. Do you think that behavior might be a bug with the visual editor? If you've seen those kinds of issues before, could you tell me what might be causing them? Either way, thanks again for fixing them. Curdigirl (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The ref names like name=":0" etc. might well originate with Visual Editor directly, or they might be added by somebody who has seen them elsewhere, because they think that it's the "proper" way to do it. I don't like VE, for one reason because it's so difficult to control what it does behind the scenes - things that are obvious if a proper text editor is used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi protection

You semi protected the Tyne and Wear Metro article back in 2013. I think it might be safe to unprotect it now, since the troll who caused the original problem is long gone. G-13114 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

IIRC it was the same person that was causing so much trouble at Merseyrail. This was unprotected a few weeks ago and the trouble resumed three days later. More at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334#User:90.213.130.132 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Semi). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is the same thing, as that seems to be a completely different argument about battery trains. The argument four years ago was about whether Merseyrail was a rapid transit system if I remember. G-13114 (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It was: and the T&WM article was also subject to EWing about whether or not it was a rapid transit system. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

New assistance needed

Hello R. When you have a moment would you please take a look at our old friend Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. There are two template redirects which I can't edit, one template sandbox and one article that need your expertise. Only a few weeks to go to new Dr Who episodes :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

These four edits should do it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. I just received this I was intrigued by these "Mythmakers" interviews when they were released originally but they were never available over here. It is fun to finally have a chance to see them. MarnetteD|Talk 19:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello again R. There are two new template redirects in the category today that can only be edited by an admin so if you could take care of them it would be appreciated. As with yesterday's they have been protected by Jo-Jo Eumerus who, I feel sure, is unaware of the protection templates that need to be used on these. A quick word with J-J would help in future protections. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Got 'em. The previous template was obsolete anyhow so I've replaced it with the correct ones anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus. MarnetteD|Talk 16:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD:  Already done, see User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Protecting template redirects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Gatwick Express/Wikimedia Foundation

You seem to be deleting entries that fully comply with Wikipedia:Rules_for_Fools and I'd argue that by submitting a humorous entry for speedy deleting you are actually disrupting Wikipedia by adding it to a serious list. Please stop your disruptive editing, calm down and get sense of humor. Then come back and discuss this before reverting again! Thank you. Mainline421 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Not only did they not "fully comply with Wikipedia:Rules_for_Fools"; by creating your discussion in the daily AfD list itself, you also failed to follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Miami metropolitan area template

Ah I didn't see that before. I'm making a new talk page for that template--SeminoleNation (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@SeminoleNation: Please cease making reverts like this. The |name= parameter of the {{navbox}} template has only one purpose - to define the little "v-t-e" links at upper left. The purposes of these three links are to:

• (v) provide a view of the navbox
• (t) access the talk page of the navbox
• (e) to edit the navbox

Since the name of the template is Template:South Florida metropolitan area, it is imperative that these three links reach that template (and no other), this is done by setting |name=South Florida metropolitan area, which yields links as follows: .

If however you set |name=Miami metropolitan area, what you end up with is - i.e. three incorrect links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)