User talk:Redrose64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Button sig.png 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
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Invasion of Time edits[edit]

The link you asked for[edit]

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


Seasons Greeting to you and yours[edit]

To you[edit]

Weihnachten10.gif 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[edit]

I was sitting with a high steward, discussing Anglo-Saxon monks. The name we couldn't remember was Nennius. All the best: Rich Farmbrough04:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC).


Weihnachten10.gif 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![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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

Season's Greetings[edit]

CMR Xmas greeting.jpg
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.

VarunFEB2003 and template signatures.[edit]

WP:Help desk#Sign issue

National Rail(way) Museum[edit]

In response to your edit summary on several articles.. They previously linked to National Rail Museum which redirects to National Railway Museum (disambiguation) (with lots of other countries). I was trying to make them point to National Railway Museum.— Rod talk 19:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, so you could simply have replaced the incorrect word "Rail" with the correct word "Railway". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
True but that option was not immediately obvious in the interface I use. At least the user now gets taken to the right article.— Rod talk 07:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Faked timestamps[edit]


You recently told Blacku22 and I not to use fake timestamps and to sign our posts at the time in this edit. The only posts I (I'll let Blacku22 answer on his own) didn't sign was at the bottom of the 2nd RfC we were creating, because it was still under construction and we were fine-tuning it. I thought I'd leave it unsigned until were were ready to publish it. But I will fix that from now on. As for the fake timestamps, I've never done such a thing and I have no reason to do so. Each time I sign a post, I do it with the 4 tildes (Rush922 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)), AT the time I post. I don't wait until after. It's only now as I'm looking at it that I see the discrepancy between "Revision as of 21:00, 10 November 2018" and the timestamp of my post at the time which is 12:37. I really don't know why it's different, I can simply say that I did NOT type it manually. Again, I have no reason to. Maybe you can help me figure out why the system is signing my posts that way. Thanks.Rush922 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Okay, I've figured out why that timestamp was different. What happened was, I was trying to close the 2nd RfC and didn't remember the proper code to close it (i.e. the {closed rfc top}), so I copied the code from the first RfC, which included its timestamp. I did it quickly, so I didn't think to check the timestamp and I considered it 'signed.' So I guess it was my fault, but I didn't fake it as you implied - it was just a copy/paste error. Next time I'll be more careful.Rush922 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In this post, there is no signature: one was added some time later in this edit, but using a timestamp for that edit, not for the original. In this post there is no signature; none was added later. Similarly with this post. In this edit the timestamp is clearly faked, and almost certainly copypasted from this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that last one was the mistake I just admitted - it wasn't faked, in the sense I didn't mean to intentionally deceive anyone by it - I just copied the code to close the rfc and wasn't thinking about the timestamp. But in any case, for edits like that and for the other edits, I will be more careful in the future, thanks.Rush922 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you kindly for being there Whispyhistory (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you I didn't get home until about 21:30 on Sunday, and was busy all day Monday and Tuesday. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting information[edit]

Fair enough, one of my captions was too long, but this edit is ridiculous. Also, if you remove information from a caption, please move it somewhere else. Don't simply delete stuff that someone has taken the trouble to add. Thank you. Mypix (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

You should have put it in the article text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits. Please do not reinstate them. Two sentences is NOT too long for a caption. Thank you for your cooperation. Mypix (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that you read MOS:CAPTION, particularly "Captions should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page, or in the main text.". I will add WP:V and WP:NOR to that, not to mention WP:EW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mypix: Further to that, why are you also reverting the replacement of the arbitrary |col=00008B with the agreed |col={{BR(S) colour}}? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"succinct" is open to interpretation. I do not agree with you that the caption is unreasonable. I think it is entirely within reasonable limits and contains only relevant information. I do not accept that your opinion on this should prevail simply because you say it should. Please note also that I do not take kindly to being accused of edit-warring and threatened with a block when YOU are the one who is edit-warring; at least, you are edit warring just as much as me. On the other point about the colour, sorry, that was just an oversight. I have restored that. Mypix (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mypix: I offer as evidence the recent page history. There is one revert by myself, one by MarnetteD (talk · contribs), and three by you. Now read WP:EW again - in particular the part about WP:3RR - and tell me why you think I should be blocked but you should not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Your first edit also counts. Just because you left part of it intact, it still counts as a revert of the other part. Regarding the other editors, yes, it's funny how those other people suddenly took such an interest in this obscure little article, that has had just a handful of edits in the past ten years, and decided to weigh in on your side against my very uncontentious and reasonable edit. I wonder why that was? Mypix (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
To obtain a wider discussion, I added this, but I do not know how to attract eyes* to it. If you know, perhaps you could advise, or please do this yourself if you wish. Mypix (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC) * BTW, that's neutral eyes, not people that you invite along to agree with you.
@Mypix: I invited nobody. I take it you refer to the edits by MarnetteD (talk · contribs) and Sladen (talk · contribs)? Can you find any evidence that I invited either of them to take any action at all? Have you asked them why they made the edits that they did? BTW, I advised you to read WP:3RR, so in view of that, you should take note that following this fourth revert you are now in danger of being reported to WP:ANEW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
You must admit that, on the face if it, it looks very suspicious. You revert my edit twice, and then, very conveniently, someone else pitches up to this obscure and extremely low-traffic article to do the next revert for you (as it seemed). I wonder how they became aware of this tiny issue. However, if it is the case that they independently do genuinely object to my caption purely on its own merits, and are not engaged in partisan voting or favouritism, then I am happy retract that suggestion. Anyway, while I am not at all happy with the situation, or the way that I alone have been singled out and accused of "edit-warring", for now I will see what comes up on the discussion page. Mypix (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mypix: you weren't just "accused of" edit warring. You actually edit warred. WP:3RR is an unambiguous bright-line rule, and you broke it. It's good that you accept the need to discuss rather than continue warring though. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Thank you for your sentiments, but please note the important phrase "I alone". I'm afraid it is the one-sided nature of this treatment that cannot go unnoticed. While it takes two, or indeed in this case three or four, to tango, apparently only one is singled out for warnings and threats, and only one is required to "accept the need to discuss rather than continue warring", while others engage in the same behaviour with apparent impunity, or mysteriously arrive mob-handed at an extremely low-profile article, eager to line up and repeatedly remove another editor's minor and pretty uncontroversial factual explanation of what a photo depicts. One party even had the nerve to slap a threatening notice on my talk page accusing me of exactly what he was engaged in doing himself! If warnings are to be issued then they should be issued equally to all parties by an uninvolved administrator, and all parties should be required to desist and discuss, not just one. As for so-called "3RR" itself, generally speaking, who hits three first depends fairly arbitrarily on whether it falls as ABABAB or BABABA. It is not morally important who is A and who is B. (Please note that I am not saying this was the exact pattern of editing here, just using an illustration.) Mypix (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mypix: I have demonstrated where you made four reverts to that article, all in less than 24 hours. Now, please will you show where I have made four reverts to that article within any 24-hour period. If you can't find them, shall we say three reverts to an article of your choice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we both know perfectly well that you began your "edit war" when you removed my description for the second time. Mypix (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC at People's Mujahedin of Iran[edit]

Hi Redrose64, I was trying to remove a request for RfC close that has been withdrawn (the request for RfC close is still active). Could you help me with this please? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: First, please don't modify somebody else's post except within WP:TPO. You added the {{close}} template to Cunard's request. Instead, you should have added it as a new comment, indented with one colon (in accordance with WP:THREAD) and supplemented that with an explanatory statement and your signature. You should also have added the |done=yes parameter to the {{initiated}} template. But that aside, the RfC was not withdrawn: it ran the full thirty days, after which Legobot (talk · contribs) removed the {{rfc}} template. Accordingly, Cunard's request at WP:AN/RFC was valid.
Second, you performed a manual archive to a page that is set up for bot archiving, and in so doing, created an archive page that was given a number not expected by the archiving bot, which continued to use the previous archive page. When a page is set up to be archived by a bot, it is almost always best to leave archiving for the bot to perform - some bots will fixup inward links, make sure that certain templates are deactivated, and perform various other cleanup tasks. Once an RfC thread is archived, it is no longer possible to give it a formal closure without going against the principles of talk page archiving. It would have been best if you had confined your actions to those described at WP:RFCEND.
Your attempts to hold an RfC at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran suggest that you should make yourself thoroughly familiar with the WP:RFC process before trying to start another one. By my reckoning, there have been seven RfCs held on that talk page, four since June 2018 (which is when you first posted there), two of which were initiated by yourself: RFC about the article's lead section; RfC on article's timeline. Just hold a normal discussion, don't attempt to formalise it as a RfC, don't stuff your posts with unreadable walls of text, be sparing with references, take heed of what others are saying, and it'll all work out in the end. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Redrose. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template : Trent Valley Line[edit]

You updated this template on 30 October 2018 and wishing to print a hard-copy of that last update to show to one of my sons, I attempted to do so in the normal way, but all that occurred was that just a single line at the top of the page was printed and nothing whatsoever of the line details. I wonder if anything untoward has occurred when the last template update was made that may have caused this problem.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: This is my edit. If you go to the previous version, can you print that? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I am pleased to report all is now well regarding this matter.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

WikIProject Country templates[edit]

Instead of manually editing each page with a snarky edit summary, it would be simpler and quicker to simply create the appropriate wrapper template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 17 November 2018‎

@BrownHairedGirl: No: not all WikiProjects have templates. In some cases (such as Women in Red), this is intentional; in others (like Comoros), it is because the "WikiProject" is actually a task force within a larger WikiProject (in this case Africa), which has its own template. See WP:COUNCIL.
Instead of accusing me of being "snarky", ask yourself: why did I do that? Even if you don't WP:PREVIEW your edits, a simple check of what you had saved would have revealed the redlink that is indicative of a problem. Every week I go through Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates to fix up the redlinked WikiProject banners left on talk pages by people who didn't even notice their errors. It's mostly the same names every time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. @Redrose64, please do stop being silly. You and I have had this discussion several times before, so my answer should be very familiar to you.
But since you seem to have chosen to ignore previous discussions, I will repeat what I said before. Adding a "WikiProject FoooCountry" banner to a talk page is an easily-automated job, done by AWB. I have no intention of doing it manually, or of previewing every edit for such a trivial task. The alternative to simply whacking the save button repeatedly for that job is that I simply don't add "WikiProject FoooCountry" banners at all, and I think that would be a net loss to Wikipedia.
In the case of countries which do not have their own template, there is a simple solution which allows this to work to everyone's satisfaction: create a wrapper template. There are now 174 of them in Category:WikiProject banner wrapper templates, and takes less than minute to create a new one ... as I have just done with e.g. Template:WikiProject Dominion of Newfoundland, Template:WikiProject Serbia and Montenegro and Template:WikiProject Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.
Why do you persist in trying to behave like a compliance cop about this persistent issue, rather adopting the simple and lightweight technical solution which allows editors to continue their workflow without the non-existent-banner ever bugging anyone else ever again? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I have now created a wrapper template (or redirect, as appropriate) for 13 of the 20 templates currently listed in the current revision Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates.

Just like creating redirects to articles, this simple step means that we now we have a permanent solution in each of those 20 cases. Editors can continue to work in the way which they find easiest, and you will be no longer troubled by their work.

That should make everyone happy. In theory.

However, I am sorry to say that having had several run-ins with you over this very issue, I come away with a strong impression that on this subject you have a strong preference for aggrieved reproach rather than simple problem-solving. Face-sad.svg

You do a lot of great work, so I wish that my otherwise high regard for you was not tarnished by your surliness about this recurring-and-fixable technical glitch.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you certain that each of those WikiProjects wanted a banner to be created? Are you also certain that a WikiProject of that name actually exists? {{WikiProject Dominion of Newfoundland}} (which you created today), for example: there is no WP:WikiProject Dominion of Newfoundland that this would logically belong to, although there is a WP:WikiProject Newfoundland: this redirects to WP:WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador, which is believed to be inactive, but there is no corresponding {{WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador}}. There is a {{WikiProject Newfoundland}}, but you also created that today.
When I add WikiProject banners to a talk page, I always check that they actually exist; if I'm not sure, I go to the talk page of an article that is primarily about the topic. So, in this case I would look at Talk:Dominion of Newfoundland and see that it has banners as follows:
{{WikiProject British Empire}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Canada|nl=yes|class=B|importance=Mid}}
so clearly there is no point in attempting to use a WikiProject banner specific to the Dominion of Newfoundland since even its own talk page doesn't have one. Similarly with {{WikiProject Comoros}} and Talk:Comoros.
Since you mention AWB, and also state "I have no intention ... of previewing every edit", I will remind you of AWB rule 1 which states "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving." After the list of rules, it states "Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled". You are an administrator, so I cannot take away your AWB rights; but that does not mean that you can ignore the AWB rules either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Redrose64, are you being deliberately obstructive? Seriously?
All that stuff about "certain that a WikiProject of that name actually exists" etc entirely misses that point of the exercise.
In mass tagging with country banners, my aim is simple: to tag with the banner of the country WikiProject, or failing that with appropriate regional WikiProject. I am concerned with the end result, which is to have the appropriate banner on the page.
For example, did you take a few seconds to look at Template:WikiProject Dominion of Newfoundland, and see what it says there? Or a few seconds more to test it in use? If you did those things, you would see that it displays exactly the same banner as directly entering {{WikiProject Canada|nl=yes}}, and that it also categorises correctly.
That's all. To do that in an repetitive way, I simply want to be add "WikiProject countryname", and have that achieve the desired result. That's all.
I really could not give a damn whether a WikiProject of that name exists, because that is not the point of the exercise.
If you want to find me a WikiProject which says "please do not tag a page with our project banner unless the template you apply has the same name as our project", then you may have a point. But do you really think that any WikiProject consisting of sane editors will say that even tho a page is within its scope, it doesn't want its banner applied there via redirect or a wrapper template? Do you seriously think, for example, that WikiProject European Union would be concerned that some pages within its scope were tagged with the project banner via a redirect from Template:WikiProject European Economic Community? Even tho there are 4 other redirects to that banner?
And quit all that carp about AWB rules. I know the rules perfectly well, and I abide by them. What happened in this case was that about 30 out a run of ~3,000 WPbanner-applying edits used a template which did not exist, about which should exist ... and when I became aware of the problem, I created the templates.
If you seriously believe that I am in beach of the AWB rules, then you know where WP:ANI is. Go ahead and complain: but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. ANI doesn't usually respond kindly to editors who waste time and energy picking pointless fights rather than taking a few simple technical steps to solving a simple problem. In particular, I remind you that you are an admin, and WP:ADMINCOND says "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". Your pointless, nit-picking obstructionism here is neither respectful nor civil, and your blatantly false allegation that I sacrificed quality for speed such utter nonsense that it borders on the malicious, because you know well that the edits concerned were syntactically and semantically correct.
When you saw those non-existent banners, all you needed to do was drop me a quick note saying "You applied some non-existent WPbanners. See WP:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates. Please fix". But instead you have created a pointless drama based entirely on your sustained aversion to problem-solving. You have now had more than enough of my time this evening. So if you want to escalate yourself into trouble, open an ANI complaint and I will see you there; otherwise it's goodnight from me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with signatures[edit]

You started helping me on why my signature was horrible because of two reasons Now I shortened it to 164 characters: Nikospatras [Chat] Is the markup still Horrible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikospatras (talkcontribs) 11:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawal of RfC[edit]

User:Redrose64, I wish to withdraw my RfC on the Talk:Jarash, Jerusalem, until I am able to come-up with a more concrete source that connects the village with Josephus' remarks. How do you I withdraw the RfC?Davidbena (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Davidbena: it's covered at WP:RFCEND; the only essential thing is to remove the {{rfc}} template. You can also add an explanation; if you like, you can add {{closed rfc top}} just below the section heading, and {{closed rfc bottom}} at the bottom of the section. You can use the |result= parameter of {{closed rfc top}} to put your explanation in. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I have used your templates to close the RfC.Davidbena (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidbena: Fine, except you didn't sign it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Oops! I just now went back over it and signed it. Thanks for telling me.Davidbena (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirects about actors[edit]

I was wondering if you knew if there was a guideline or policy regarding redirects such as Kyle Allen (actor), with this redirect about an actor redirecting to one of the shows/films he's done. I'm asking because I'm sure I've seen a few redirects like this before, and I don't see the point because you are not going to find out much about Kyle Allen by looking at this article about a show he once did, and why is it this article picked rather one about one of his other works? TedEdwards 21:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: How many notable works has he appeared in? If The Path is the only one, this is covered by WP:BIO1E. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, that might have been true until a few weeks ago when he appeared in American Horror Story: Apocalypse. The difference is he appears to have starred in the Path, but didn't star in AHS, although in the first 3 episodes at least played a fairly major character, mentioned plenty of times in our plot summaries for first and second episode (although I'm not sure if saying that's WP:OR or not) and the actor has a mention on the FX website (the production company that makes AHS). Thank you for your reply TedEdwards 00:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

5551 text[edit]

You do realise the way the description was spelt before is the original text for the image when I uploaded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talkcontribs) 00:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: What are you talking about? Your post makes little sense. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Redrose64. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


Hey there! I need help with the moving of Ghairat (Pakistani television series) to Ghairat since it’s creation protected. Thanks :) VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 05:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: Why are you asking me? Your first contact should be the admin who set the create protection on Ghairat, which according to the page's logs (reproduced in the pink box when you visit the page) was There'sNoTime (talk · contribs); but please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghairat and also WP:CSD#G4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
All right, noted. :) VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 15:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


Sorry I didn't understand your edit summary - is there something wrong with my adding a lengthier comment in the extended discussion section? I'm not planning to say much further during the course of the discussion, unless there is a very compelling reason to get involved. But I'm not sure how much more neutral and brief the RfC statement itself can be - is the extended discussion showing up in the bot listing or something? Seraphim System (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: You can include whatever comments you like (within reason), but you should remember that when Legobot (talk · contribs) adds the RfC to the listing pages, it copies everything from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to the first timestamp (inclusive), with this result. This is neither neutral nor brief. The brevity problem is addressed by adding a second signature (or simply a timestamp) before the subheading, so that Legobot knows where to stop copying - in a few minutes time, this edit will be made, reflecting my edit. The neutrality issue is something that should be left to you - and I see that EtienneDolet (talk · contribs) has already left a post to that effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry, I didn't know all that - I will try to remember to add a signature next time. Seraphim System (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


Becaause the link is new, and will be part of zone 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiggyTimmy (talkcontribs) 00:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@RiggyTimmy: What link is new? Which zone 6 is the link going to be part of? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Redrose64 I think they mean London fare zone 6.
RiggyTimmy It's not part of Zone 6 yet, and it's not been confirmed if/when it will be, see [1]. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Epsom, yes the link is new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiggyTimmy (talkcontribs) 01:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It is still unclear what you are talking about: for instance, what is "the link"? If you have suggestions for improving an article, they may be placed on the article's talk page. Also, there is no need to start a new section here when your comment is apparently related to the thread immediately above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Heald Green railway station[edit]

On Heald Green , transpennine dont stop there after the may 2018 timetable change — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You are persistently removing sourced content, replacing it with content which is not sourced. This is against the policy on verifiability. Also, your edits are causing damage to the routebox. You are reverting without acknowledging the problems that you are causing. All in all, you are being disruptive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Helping me understand markup[edit]

Hello there. How are you?

Because you are better with markup, please help me understand why after is better than before here and here.

Many thanks and my very best wishes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I now know why you changed this. Because an url prevents 'WhatLinksHere' from working, right? :) I will always use hyperlinks now when appropriate.

(Also, I now know that "What Links Here" is a phrase used by someone with poor English at a butcher's when inquiring about sausage selection.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Maybe you missed the message or forgot. :) Please help me understand. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I did see it, but time has been tight recently - it's been a struggle to keep on top of my watchlist, and some entries which deserve a proper response have been set aside, this is one such case. I now have a couple of spare days. Anyway:
For your first diff: this is MOS:LISTGAP and I forgot to link that in my edit.
For your second diff: this is also about accessibility, but mainly concerns semantics. HTML provides three main kinds of list. In Wikimarkup, asterisks produce an unordered list, which represents a list of items, where the order of the items is not important - that is, where changing the order would not materially change the meaning of the document. Also in Wikimarkup, the hash character will produce an ordered list, which represents a list of items, where the items have been intentionally ordered, such that changing the order would change the meaning of the document. Such lists may be given a type, which can be used to specify the kind of marker to use in the list, in the cases where that matters (e.g., because items are to be referenced by their number/letter). This is precisely your intention: that people refer to the various options as A, B and C; unfortunately, our hash markup will only produce the 1, 2, 3 ... type. To obtain the A, B, C ... type, we need to use HTML markup.
For your third diff: yes, it's partly a "What Links Here" concern. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I filed phab:T202083 shortly ago and then discovered it was a duplicate of a 2005 task. Oof. --Izno (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: This isn't the same thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs) did this:
*'''A''': Prominent items from iconic films
*'''B''': Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
*'''C''': Something else?
which emits the HTML
<ul><li><b>A</b>: Prominent items from iconic films</li>
<li><b>B</b>: Any item of film memorabilia that has an article</li>
<li><b>C</b>: Something else?</li></ul>
which is an unordered list, and looks like this:
  • A: Prominent items from iconic films
  • B: Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
  • C: Something else?
whereas I would prefer to use an ordered list:
<ol type=A><li>Prominent items from iconic films
<li>Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
<li>Something else?
which looks like this:
  1. Prominent items from iconic films
  2. Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
  3. Something else?
Your phab ticket is about ordered lists, but not for setting the type to something other than numeric - it concerns setting a start value other than 1. It's actually the same technique that I used five years ago at The Sun Shines Bright (book) (and somewhere else at least a year earlier than that). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
It's fundamentally the same issue--we can't set any attributes on a list element. Order/start, class, ID, etc. --Izno (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries about the late reply.

Okay, hyperlinks not urls, now I know why.

So for responses, avoid colons, but rather use stars then more and more stars, got it.

The ordered lists and html makes my head spin and looks like a lot of work. Simple stars is something the community can understand in edit mode. And in edit mode with html, the ABCs vanish and the whole thing looks unnecessarily complicated. I don't understand the reason for it. Is it essential, or can I stick with the stars?

Many thanks for the thoughtful response. Please understand that most users see all this <ol type=A><li> stuff and think why not *A?

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: MOS:LISTGAP isn't about avoiding colons, it's about constructing correctly-formed lists and keeping accessibility in mind. Essentially, when you want to reply to a post that is already marked up with asterisks, colons or even hashes (or a mixture of these), you should copy the markup from the start of the post that you're replying to, start a new line (without leaving any blank lines), paste the symbols that you've copied, and add one symbol to the right-hand end of those that you've just pasted. So, when you come across posts like this:
*'''B''' We have few in the category ...
*'''C''' I think any item which has ...
*'''A''' and '''B''', if it a big ...
and you want to respond to the first two, valid formats would be either
*'''B''' We have few in the category ...
*:I'd like to add to my criterion ...
*'''C''' I think any item which has ...
*:Actually, there are only a handful of ...
*'''A''' and '''B''', if it a big ...
(that is, paste the asterisk and add a colon to its right) or
*'''B''' We have few in the category ...
**I'd like to add to my criterion ...
*'''C''' I think any item which has ...
**Actually, there are only a handful of ...
*'''A''' and '''B''', if it a big ...
(paste the asterisk and add another asterisk to its right) but not
*'''B''' We have few in the category ...
::I'd like to add to my criterion ...
*'''C''' I think any item which has ...
::Actually, there are only a handful of ...
*'''A''' and '''B''', if it a big ...
*'''B''' We have few in the category ...
:*I'd like to add to my criterion ...
*'''C''' I think any item which has ...
:*Actually, there are only a handful of ...
*'''A''' and '''B''', if it a big ...
Simple stars is something the community can understand in edit mode, true; and similarly, the community can understand hashes in edit mode. The problem with hashes - as far as this particular example is concerned - is that they can only make ordered lists that are formatted 1, 2, 3 ... and not A, B, C ... If you had chosen to number your options, instead of using letters, we could have made the list as follows:
#Prominent items from iconic films
#Any item of film memorabilia that has an article
#Something else?
and that would have made a valid ordered list, with the items numbered 1, 2 and 3. Screen reader users like Graham87 (talk · contribs) can explain (far better than I can) about the importance of using a correctly-formed ordered list rather than something that merely looks like an ordered list (but which is actually faked-up from different elements that give the appearance but not the semantics). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I think I have it now: Copy what is already there and add another symbol like star or colon, whichever seems right.
Many thanks.
Oh, and you replied indented with a colon, so I used two, no stars. Was that okay?
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The post that I was replying to - yours of 22:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC) - had no indentation at all. So there were no symbols to copy; no symbols plus one symbol makes one symbol, and the one symbol that I used was a colon. I could have used an asterisk - but WP:INDENT recommends the use of colons alone. Your reply used two colons, and that is appropriate - but you also left blank lines, contrary to MOS:LISTGAP. These blank lines terminate the list and start another, which is what we're trying to avoid. I have removed those blank lines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Even *I* wasn't that that familiar with the ordered list types ... but semantically correct HTML elements are a bit nicer for screen reader users like me because we can navigate between things like lists and list items with one keystroke, and having them marked-up correctly makes it easier to tell what's where. Graham87 06:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The blank lines! Okay, I think I have it now. I remember the olden days when things were simple. You just typed.
Here in China, years ago, the cashier said the price, and you'd give her some money. Done. Now, you get asked if you have a vip card, get offered a bunch of stuff, get credits or something you have to sign for, have to use your phone and scan that square thing with the black and white bits, and all that. It takes forever. Tom Hanks was right. Typewriters!
Oh, the space between the paragraphs is okay, right, because they're paragraphs?
Finally, did you actually type {{diff|User talk:Redrose64|prev|872596081|removed}} rather than [ removed]? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion to "The King's Demons"[edit]

Hi Redrose, I see you reverted my change to "The King's Demons." I am familiar with WP:SPOILER, but I was surprised to see most of what was going to happen revealed in the second paragraph. A key part of the story was discovering that an imposter King John was being controlled by the Master. I had never seen that episode before, I went to take a quick look at the WP introduction and cast, and it gave away numerous plot points that I would have rather watched evolve myself. I just don't find it is necessary to give away key points in the lede to accomplish encyclopedic goals, especially according to the following.

The WP:SPOILERS document confuses me a bit, seeming variable on the priorities of the lede and other content. On one hand it implies that it is good to have spoilers in their labeled section (i.e. Plot). Second, it suggests that the lede shouldn't worry about spoilers over proper conten. Third, it says that. "Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." If the article is supposed to do that, and the lede overview that, well, I don't think we are there yet.

Regarding neutral POV, perhaps because you mentioned that because I said the doctor "sets things right" (meant slightly tongue-in-cheek, because that is what he "does" in almost every episode). I can certainly revise that to a more encyclopedic style. However, the lede now seems written more for fans to keep track of episodes than as an encyclopedia entry.

Aside from spoilers in the intro,I don't have a strong stance on whether Doctor Who articles should focus on fan or academic aspects.. Although I know all Wikipedia is supposed to all be academic, I am not seeing that with with a *lot* of other pop culture articles (not to mention a surprisingly high number of key concept articles in general.)

Would like to know if there some a possible middle ground. Regarding the NPOV, perhaps it would be more relevant to focus on the Doctor's purpose of correcting history to ensure the signing of the Magna Carta? And why that might be an important goal?

Looking forward to your thoughts, Thanks, Peacedance (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC fix[edit]

Re this, thanks for the fix and the ping. I have a vague memory of a situation where the proper fix was to remove the rfcid. Some of this stuff baffles me after 5 years editing, and that's generally an indicator of a poor design. ―Mandruss  00:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

There are several situations when you need to remove the |rfcid=, they include:
  • Maintenance because of bugs in Legobot:
    • User is adding one or more rfc categories when there were none beforehand - otherwise Legobot continues to list the RfC in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted
    • User is removing one or more rfc categories - otherwise Legobot continues to list the RfC in the pages for the categories that were removed
    • The rfc is being moved from one page to another, i.e. not a regular WP:MOVE but a cut & paste move, perhaps to a subpage or a venue more appropriate than the original one (example)
  • Cleaning up after user errors:
    • Two RfCs that have the same |rfcid= value (example) - this can happen if a second {{rfc}} template is added to a page (usually in a different discussion) before Legobot has visited the first to add a |rfcid=, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Multiple RfCs on one page
    • somebody started a new RfC, but copied the {{rfc}} template including its |rfcid= parameter from one discussion page to another (example)
    • somebody altered the Legobot-assigned value to a different value (example)
I've spent three or four years analysing how Legobot behaves, and still haven't got it all worked out.
Of course this means you can never retire. ―Mandruss  01:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Zodiac Seats U.S.[edit]

Please leave the RFC in place at Talk:Zodiac Seats U.S., as I am trying to get more feedback on the name change. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: Please don't, what you have essentially done is start two separate discussions on the same matter, this goes against WP:MULTI. The WP:RM process exists as a dedicated venue for page renaming discussions, it has its own notifications system, and is also part of article alerts. There is no need to hold a WP:RFC as well. Please also note that RM lasts for seven days, but RfC lasts for thirty. By the time that the RfC closes, the RM will be long expired.
Also: why did you remove the |rfcid=57B5A9B in this edit? It has caused Legobot to issue another one, and it has also broken inward links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Reply - @Redrose64:, I created a new RFC so that it would properly post to the RFC site. I wish that the RFC were not removed in the first place. With the number of responses that I have been given, I have a feeling that the move discussion could get relisted. The number of responses that I have gotten is quite minimal. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jax 0677: I see that Steel1943 (talk · contribs) agrees with me, although their technique was different. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Confusion on a talk page about an actor's notability - input please?[edit]

Hi RedRose,

Sorry if this is a bit long, but there's a bit of an issue I would like help with. I think we've exhausted other options and so I'm trying to get some uninvolved admins like you for an unbiased opinion. On the talk page of Indian actor Sara Ali Khan there is an issue with notability. I know you may/may not be familiar with Indian film people, but this is more an issue of article creation. Let me break down what happened:

The subject is an Indian actress from a prominent film family (and thus whose notability had earlier been debated on grounds of popularity) who just released her first film on 7 December, 3 days ago. Her second film is set to release on 28 December, just weeks away. Her second film is set to release on 28 December, just weeks away. In late November it was discussed/decided that her page should be kept a redirect (and thus the article in the draft stage) until further consensus, as at that time she had not released her first film. On December 7, I submitted the draft for a review to be moved into mainspace; an advanced user told me that she didn't qualify for notability, as the WP:NACTOR guidelines state that she needs to have multiple (i.e. more than 1 film) releases, and that I should wait until 28 December to resubmit. I accepted this.

In the meantime that day, some users started editing that page, believing she passed notability and not reading/realizing there was a consensus not to. Later, some editors reverted these edits, several times, and an admin eventually protected the page. So for the time being, the previous consensus was kept.

The on 8 December, user:DBigXray started up the article creation again, to which user:Qualitist disagreed, saying (as I myself was told) that there should be more than 1 release for an actor. DBigXRay disagreed, asserting that as per General Notability Guidelines, not Actor Notability, she qualifies to have her own article, and brought discussion to the talk page.

Then, approx between 10:00-11:22, DBigXray and Qualitist were arguing on the talk page over the fact that consensus had not been achieved, with Qualitist wanting to get more users' input. While this was going on, Krimuk2.0 and DBigXray kept on editing and adding to the article. That is what I mostly disagree with, as they had not gotten any kind of consensus to do so , yet simply decided she was notable on their own and went ahead with editing it. Seven hours later, Cyphoidbomb agreed on her notability, and then I chimed in and said that I took issue with it. I pinged a few other users, who didn't have a strong opinion either way. As of writing this now, I still don't believe consensus was achieved fairly.

So I want to bring you and a few uninvolved admins in for your thoughts. As per the reasoning of Krimuk2.0 and DBigXray, Krimuk2.0 said, "I think it's quite appropriate to have the article in the mainspace now as her debut performance has garnered significant commentary and coverage, and her second release is right around the corner." But where does one put a limit on 'right around the corner?' Aren't they using WP:CRYSTALBALL to judge based on a future release, even if it is only a few weeks away? There is another actress, Janhvi Kapoor, who had her first release in July of this year - her second confirmed release is in 2020. Like Sara, Janhvi comes from a prominent film family, and after her release she was much talked about in the press. I created a draft page for her a while ago, but as she only had 1 film, she was declared ineligible for a page. Now this is not a case of WP:Sourgrapes as Krimuk2.0 had accused me, as I let go of attachment to that article long ago. But I do want things to be done fairly- so why would they give Sara Ali Khan her page but not Janhvi? I just want to know if Sara should indeed have her own page now, or if she should still be under redirect. Please let me know your thoughts - preferably on the Sara Ali Khan talk page itself. Thanks very much.Rush922(talk) 08:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rush922: Why are you WP:CANVASSing admins (myself, Amorymeltzer and Materialscientist) instead of using the normal channels? In fact, what gives you the impression that I know anything at all about this actor?
Anyway, you have an ongoing discussion at its talk page, that is good: if you want to bring in more opinions, the WP:RFC process is available. The template would be {{rfc|bio|media}} but please ensure that the avenues described at WP:RFCBEFORE have been tried. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning the RfC, since we already had a discussion going on the talk page, calling for an RfC didn't cross my mind, but that's a better way to go. And to be fair, I don't think I Canvassed because I am not seeking to shape the outcome in any particular way, in fact what I was doing is what is stated at the top of that page: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." And I realize that you may not know this actor (I mentioned that at the beginning), yet as an admin I figure you knew more about page creation policy and so I wanted your opinion. In any case, I will try the other avenues first that you recommended, and not go by the other admins unless needed again.Rush922(talk) 10:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


You have reverted my entry on Wryde station as 'guesswork' and I'm not sure why. As a new poster I find this rather dispiriting. OS map seems good evidence. That it is narrow gauge is strongly suggested by the map showing the lines not joining but running parallel. If there is a specific general issue here, please advise, as I would suggest that the small number of agricultural tramways are worth recording on wikipedia. I'm still working out how best to link a map view (as a link? as a reference?) Please advise. Glucosamine (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Glucosamine: Words like "possibly" imply that a certain amount of speculation has been made. Wikipedia has certain core policies, including those on original research and verifiabilty. Basically: if it's your considered opinion, which cannot be supported by reliable published sources, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

London stations infobox[edit]

Hey RedRose

I'll be honest, that whole thing confused me. Once Wiki starts to look like computer programming my head just gives up. I tried what I thought worked then stayed well alone. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

Christmas tableau.jpg Happy Christmas!
Hello Redrose64,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 19:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for this edit. Sorry, this was my first time closing a requested move. Next time (if there is a next time) I'll try to remember. Would you mind taking a minute to look at my close? I want to make sure I didn't mess anything else up... --DannyS712 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Visible anchor/doc revert[edit]

My edit to the documentation was based on Sandbox experiments and direct observation. Editing a section with a visible anchor in it produces a blank auto-filled edit summary, not a "broken" summary. There is no "gray" text in the summary, and there has never been "blue" text in the summary: The text in the "Edit summary" box is and always has been black. If you're talking about the article's history page, section information in summaries has always appeared in light gray text, regardless of whether the "Edit summary" box is auto-filled or manually filled. The auto-filled content of the box is optional in any case, and editors often replace it in toto before saving their changes. Moreover, Wikipedia is not generating HTML5. It appears to be an illegal mix of mostly XHTML and some HTML 4.0 Transitional, as is evident by a simple visual inspection of the source code of any page. If a Wikipedia page is submitted to the W3C Validator, it results in copious errors, since the content of the source does not match the DOCTYPE. Now that I've made you aware of this, how are you going to correct the misinformation on the Visible anchor/doc page? — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 19:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hydrargyrum: Any page on the web which uses <!doctype html> is an HTML 5 document. It may not be valid, but that is what it is. The majority of "invalid" HTML output on Wikipedia is a result of editors using obsolete elements and attributes or incorrect positioning of elements according to the HTML 5 layout rules (see also WP:Linter) rather than being due to the software itself (many documented exceptions exist as tasks to be worked in WP:Phabricator). Validation tools are not the be-all end-all, and the original author of that particular tool has since sworn off that tool somewhat. --Izno (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Hydrargyrum: My revert is here. In my edit summary I linked to Special:Diff/874816157 which is your second edit to the sandbox. If you visit that diff, you will see at the top of the right-hand side, the following text:
(→‎JUNK Raft Project: Editing just this section)
The part between the opening parenthesis and the colon is grey, and it's a clickable link. Until a few weeks ago, only the arrow was clickable, but the link has always been there. If you click it, you are taken to the section heading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Redrose64, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019[edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Redrose64, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Whispyhistory (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

255221-1330620645 royal Col Cariani Adoration.jpg Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year[edit]

Season's Greetings, Christmas Card from 320 Ranch.jpg
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Redrose64, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 13:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year[edit]


Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

thank you about multi column answer[edit]

Thank you for the answer about {{div col|colwidth=20em}}. Works great! RJFJR (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Template : SYR Barnsley to Doncaster[edit]

Is it possible to add Mexborough (Ferry Boat) Halt to this template,but I am unsure if it situated before or after Mexborough Junction in the river area shown on the template, from what information that I have gleaned from a reading of the Wikipedia article.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Redrose64![edit]

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

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Redrose ![edit]

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...[edit]

Vin chaud 2.jpg
... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi!
That is Welsh and translates to:
Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019!
Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia.

Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Replying to your question in a recent edit summary[edit]

Hello Redrose64, thank you for your recent efforts to improve Wikipedia.[2] While the rhetorical question you asked in the edit summary doesn't exactly invite a reply, I wouldn't be true to myself, after seeing it, If I didn't stand tall in your presence to proudly acknowledge the same, and ask you directly if there was anything about that edit that you wanted to discuss? I am willing to account for my actions to any needed degree, and as willing to directly move on; depending on whichever you think is best. I'm not, however, keen with pretending that I don't care when I most certainly do. With esteem, I remain.--John Cline (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

We have templates like {{tlc}} and {{tlxs}} to simplify how markup is demonstrated, so there should not be a need to re-complicate it with the <code>...</code> and <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand, and primarily agree. I've never reviewed an edit appended by you where there wasn't something that I learned and I thank you for that. At times that process of learning involves reinforcing things that I'd already learned but allowed to fall in disrepair from laziness and a lack of proper focus. In this case I had forgotten that keeping things straight forward and less complex is always the better approach and would have done well to have stayed that course. Chances are good that I'm less inclined now of forgetting again any time soon. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Double chimney link on 4767 article[edit]

There is no page in existance for the highlighting of the word double chimney so what is the point of the link as it makes absolutely no sense unless your willing to create an article for it since you clearly claim to know more. XD Either remove the link or create a page for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talkcontribs) 22:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: As Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) and myself have both told you, non-existence of an article is not grounds to delink a redlinked term. Please read and understand what it says at WP:REDDEAL. Remember that there is no deadline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Even if double chimney was an inappropriate link, you're 4RRnow 5RR edit-warring. That's what the WP:ANEW filing is about (ANEW doesn't get involved in content arguments). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Llansadwrn pronunciation[edit]

I'm aware that Llansadwrn is not in Ynys Mon, but despite its filename the audio just consists of someone saying "Llansadwrn", which ought to work both for Anglesey Llansadwrn and Carmarthenshire Llansadwrn. I realise there are differences in accent between North and South, but as these two places have the same name should the title of the audio file really be a barrier to including it in this article? Or am I missing something important here? Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It just seems strange to mention a place at the other end of the country that just happens to share a name. In England, there are a number of places with identically-spelt but differently-pronounced names - such as Gillingham, Dorset and Gillingham, Kent. I expect that there are also examples in Wales. If the pronounciation is basically the same, was it not possible to name the file File:Llansadwrn.ogg? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)