User talk:Redrose64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tomintoul (talk | contribs) at 06:39, 7 August 2022 (→‎Advice on WP:BRD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

?

Please review WP:GOODFAITH and tell me where it says we can't make duplicates of the same message for birthdays, first edit days, etc, thanks a lot, as 86.173.215.42 said, avoid snide comments. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 17:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DinosaurTrexXX33: The message that you sent and the two that Idoghor Melody (talk · contribs) sent were identical (apart from the signatures) to one previously sent by Interstatefive (talk · contribs). They included the text "On behalf of the Birthday Committee", which means that each of you was acting for the group: only one of the three of you should have posted in that capacity. Do you have a checklist to record who has been messaged? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64::I understand your point but I don't see where it says that on WP:BIRTHDAYS. If I am wrong, please message me back. Regards, Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: a part of Wikipedia:BDC states that “More than one person from the committee may send messages to the same person and belated greetings are ok too.” and this contradicts your opinion. Thank you. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the talk page help. You're absolutely right that these birthday messages are borderline spam.

Can we please block this kid for a year or two? Surely this user page is enough to say they're not ready to contribute constructively to a free encyclopedia. And a quick scan of their contributions indicates that they have very little interest in editing articles or otherwise improving the project. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a child, and I am not fully matured yet, and even if I am not, I still try to help out Wikipedia. Please review WP:GOOD FAITH as I wasn't trying to do anything wrong (but I did do a few things wrong, so I can take the blame for that), and I might have been on this site for 2 years, but I still do not know my way around, I leave it to the users to help me. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 11:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A blocked editor, a draft and a new editor with half your name

I've received an e-mail from blocked editor Djm-leighpark concerning Draft:John Melling (locomotive engineer). New editor RedrO ehT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has added the image to the draft. Djm is concerned that there may be allegations of socking, which he denies, and is concerned that there may be an attempt to get him globally locked as the "Red" part of the new editors user name is also part of an alternative user name of his.

Not sure what we can do about the concerns raised, other than keeping an eye on AN or ANI. The new user's name may be of concern as a possible imitator or yourself, although it is "The Order" spelled backwards. A possible indicator of someone intent on mischief. Or it could be entirely innocent.

The draft article itself is fully referenced, and covers a locomotive engineer active in the 1830s. As editors in good standing, there is nothing stopping us moving the draft to mainspace, is there? Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had not previously heard of the subject of the article. He's not mnentioned by Baxter or John Marshall. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a search of contemporary local newspapers, nothing turned up except one item re the improvements to steam locomotives. Plenty of other John Mellings's who were petty criminals, but nothing on the engineer. I'm minded to move the draft to mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

If you are providing personal advice to a user, you may wish to use talk pages instead of using edit summaries as a personalised messaging system. In today's Wikipedia climate with admins walking on eggs, saying things on Wikipedia that might not fully comply with convention could be construed by some editors as a lack of AGF or even back-door criticism. Some editors might simply tacitly retire. Newbies might even complain vociferously, or other governance obsessives might even complain on their behalf. Been there, done that, got my admin T-shirt stripped off my back 😉 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks nevertheless for the heads up. That said, as semi-retired I do not expect to be launching many RfC in the near future if I can possibly avoid it. My sensibilities are these days are very much on edge, hence my withdrawal from most things on WP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley You're welcome! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template adjacent stations on Shenzhen Metro

Can I pick your brains again please? I can't get my head around the syntax for Template:Adjacent stations on Shenzhen Metro (system=SZM). On several articles (ie Shangfen station, Shangtang station & Shenzhen North station) the template is used in the info box & should point to Hongshan station (Shenzhen Metro) but currently go to the dab page Hongshan station. I've tried every combination of parameters that I can think of but none seem to work. Any help appreciated.— Rod talk 08:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used it. I think that I spoke out against it right from the start, on the grounds that it was difficult to use unless properly set up and documented. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I wrote documentation for disambiguating stations at Module:Adjacent stations#Disambiguating stations. Feedback is always appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have often found it difficult and it is a frequent issue identified (among other railway related ones) at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links.— Rod talk 20:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I wrote that detailed explainer in response to feedback from someone who works on page disambiguation. Is it helpful? Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, I fixed it: [1]. Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what detailed explainer you are referring to - but thanks for fixing this example.— Rod talk 21:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further up in the thread: Module:Adjacent stations#Disambiguating stations. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:NET colour

Template:NET colour has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for sorting out that list at VPP[2]. I'd say "what was I thinking?" but I clearly wasn't. NebY (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley You're welcome! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BR Class 26

Hi. I’ve recently been changing the status of class 26 loco 26040 to ‘engine running, traction achieved by I.Fitzpatrick 15/6/22’ which is accurate. Can we please stop changing it back to ‘undergoing repair’ when this doesn’t provide an accurate reflection of the current position. Ftzi (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ftzi: You refer, I presume, to edits like this (where you added Engine running & traction achieved by I.Fitzpatrick 15/6/22), this (Traction achieved & ran for the first time on a heritage railway 15/6/22 by I.Fitzpatrick.) and this (Traction achieved 15/6/22 by I.Fitzpatrick.). I think that it means that on 15 June 2022 (and regarding 15/6/22, please see the guideline on writing dates) somebody called I.Fitzpatrick started the engine. This information is of an unencyclopedic (some might say insignificant) nature, and it has all the appearance of blogging. Please observe the policy on verifiability: personal knowledge is only acceptable if already published in reliable third-party sources. I don't know who I.Fitzpatrick is, but I expect that they are alive, in which case the policy on living persons applies also. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A1x terrier stepney

thank you for contributions. I think you made a mistake on the edit I made. I did not make it in a non-neutral point of view. I made it in a factual point view. thank for your services, please message me if you have any questions. Mallie22 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I suggest that you read the pages linked from the posts that I have left. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by RFC removal

Hi RedRose, Regarding this edit you made, removing the RFC tag and summing it up by saying "This is a WP:SPLIT matter, not an RfC matter".

I am quite confused by this edit. Turning Point Action already has an article. It was split out prior to the RFC. The contested Turning Point Action content inside has been argued in the talk page section several times as to whether or not it belongs on the TPUSA page. There isn't any consensus being reached by a normal discussion, the consensus is always divided (As you can go see right now there is no clear consensus, its half for & half against). That is why I made the RFC, to get outside editors opinions if content not related to the source article should remain.

How would a WP:Split resolve this issue? MaximusEditor (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the split discussed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the Split discussion is relevant; The Turning Point Action article was ultimately created after previous discussions on Turning Point USA's talk page regarding the very same issue as the RFC. Does TPAction content that doesn't have anything to do with TPUSA belong on TPUSA's article page? So, no this isn't a WP:SPLIT issue, we are well past that. I don't see how we could discuss a split, when the article you want to discuss being split out has already been created. The problem lays with editors not agreeing what belongs on what page. That is what the RFC addressed. So I need you to clarify what to do now, since you removed the RFC. As it stands the RFC that was downgraded to a talk page discussion is 3 support vs 2 oppose. Editors appear to be ignoring the fact that TPAction has its own page and continue to place non-TPUSA content on the TPUSA page under the TPAction section. Can you please advise on what action to take to get wrongfully published material on a certain page, posted on the page it belongs on? MaximusEditor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite trivial

Here, your es suggests I'm not "respecting" ie erroneously trespassing. I find that a needless personalisation (or reproach), leaving the GF sphere. BTW, the edit is trivial. (And while I looked at it once more: probably the blue link is not in place).

Anyway, I'll consider it a minor style habit issue. DePiep (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a single consistent list to a set of three lists that are mutually inconsistent causes accessibility issues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it was the "respect" part, as described. For example, just linking the MOS in the es would have done: when following I'd learn, when not folllowing -- editor can't be helped. -DePiep (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why the hell did you change my refering to 60009 as ,,she,, to ,,it,, on her page? Don't you know that locomotives are symbolically refer to as ,,females,,? SilverFox60017 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page lurker here) Wikipedia generally refers to all machinery using 'it' and 'they' pronouns, not feminine or masculine pronouns. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverFox60017: Per my edit summary, this is covered by MOS:GNL. In short: the only inanimate objects for which gendered pronouns may be used are ships (and even that is debatable). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 That's not true. Both rail workers and enthusiasts refer to locomotives as females. My English teacher (who came from Britain) confirmed that. SilverFox60017 (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What these people do is their own business. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, generally accepted by the community: this is not the place to argue that it should be violated. If you want the Wikipedia Manual of Style to be altered, propose it at WT:MOS but you will need to make a very strong case, and be prepared to counter the many points against your proposal that inevitably will be presented. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XtraJovial Wait, users here refer to a single machine as they?! I can't believe they push this gender nonsense even on inanimate objects? SilverFox60017 (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying too hard to be offended - he clearly meant "it" (singular) and "they" (plural). Black Kite (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverFox60017: whilst historically machines have been referred to in the feminine (We may also note that the miller, as the sailor when referring to his ship, speaks of his mill as being of the feminine gender : "Ah! She's been a fine old mill in her time." The practice of using the feminine pronoun for ships is immemorial ; it may have arisen, I am told, from the resemblance of a ship in full sail to a graceful woman. - Coles Finch, William (1933). Watermills and Windmills. p. 62.), here on Wikipedia they are generally referred to in the neuter with the noted exception of ships, where it is the article creator's choice of which to use. I suggest that you accept there is WP:CONSENSUS on this issue otherwise you are likely to find yourself blocked. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music4Uonline

Hi Redrose. Would you be willing to undelete the above article and move it to my userspace? The person who wrote it is a friend of mine, and I figured that I might be able to help them, even 16 years after deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was not deleted following a WP:PROD but as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music4Uonline, I can't do this unilaterally - I would be in breach of WP:ADMINACCT and it would be deleted again as a WP:CSD#G4. You would need to file a WP:DRV. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Righto, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite journal/doc

Hi. Could you add something to explain what param 'at' is and what it's used for? Is it the English word "at", meaning location, or an abbreviation of something? Thanks. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite journal#csdoc_at. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Hi, unless I missed something here MOS:SEEALSO, here MOS:NOTSEEALSO or somewhere else in MOS, I cannot see anything wrong with the See also section in B. Hick and Sons prior to your last 2 edits? Some points could eventually form paragraphs in the main body. Regards Rstory (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rstory: Regarding this edit: the placement of {{Use dmy dates}} is (debatably) among the top matter or among the bottom matter, it certainly doesn't belong anywhere else and is of zero relevance for "See also". Regarding this edit: there should be no reason to use references for the individual entries in "See also". MOS:SEEALSO says Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. - it says nothing at all about adding references. Those belong in the prose of the linked-to article. If you feel that you need to justify the inclusion by using a ref in addition to the permitted annotation, the connection is probably very tenuous indeed. Consider the entry:
there are four links here, there should only need to be one. When I follow each of the last three, I find no mention of Hick at all; and on the Dick, Kerr page, the only mention is in "See also". If Dick, Kerr & Co. used products devised or manufactured by Hick Hargreaves there should at the very least be a passage in one or both of the articles describing them. The reference may go there, as may the links to condenser, English Electric and turbo generator. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry {{Use dmy dates}} was a typo, your correction duly thanked.
I agree, MOS:SEEALSO says nothing about adding references, which is why when I checked it some time ago, I could find no reason not to add references to support the anotations to ensure the links were evidential. It seems my error in good faith is more related to MOS on references and linking, perhaps the guidance on SEEALSO or NOTSEEALSO could be clarified? The links with refs will if I can find a way, be moved into one or other article(s).Rstory (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on WP:BRD

You've previously given some good advice on the above topic.

I would welcome you views about recent edits here: 45 Years

Thank you. Tomintoul (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomintoul: You asked exactly the same question at User talk:John Maynard Friedman#Advice on WP:BRD, so per WP:MULTI I'll reply there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Redrose64. Did you have any thoughts on the response to your comment I posted on John Maynard? Tomintoul (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

[This reply will sound snarkier than is warranted, but I can't resist.]

Please be considerate; not everyone has the faintest idea what the distinction between WP:CS1 and WP:CS2 is, so you shouldn't blindly revert well-meaning edits and in so doing reintroduce the citation errors which the underinformed prior editor was clumsily attempting to correct. —scs (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scs: the curious thing about that article is that whilst four references come from the same website (Railways Archive), they all use different templates - {{cite web}}, {{Cite document}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}}. Each of them links to a PDF of an accident report, these reports are definitely not journals and whilst one has an ISBN, they're not really books in the accepted sense. Although all could be seen as web sources, that's not how they were originally published so perhaps {{cite report}} would be best. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY & tagging userpages

Hello Redrose, I think we are now well beyond the point of WP:DENY in regards to this LTA; tagging each new sock seems unnecessary. Unless you are doing it for tracking purposes, which is fine, but maybe we should avoid creating pages for potentially BLP-violating usernames such as this or this. Sro23 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: I'm building a profile of their typical editing habits. Whilst edits like this are frequent, they have several other MOs. If I can identify patterns, I can spot these in recent changes and confirm by checking back through other (suspected) socks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my template parameter typo in WP:ANRFC, I've been away for a while so I'm a bit rusty. Anyways, hope you've had an enjoyable summer and a good rest of the week :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redrose64&oldid=1102849048"