User talk:Redrose64

Redrose64 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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 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

My Talk Archives

Hints: 13 July 2009- Suggestions: 13 July 2009- Responses: 20 July 2009- Thanks: 17 August 2009- Complaints: 26 August 2009- Requests: 18 October 2009- Queries: 6 November 2009- Miscellaneous: 26 March 2010- Admin: 24 August 2010- Unclassified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I went to leave you a message here, as you requested, but the above tells me to leave it on my talk page - so I have done.

I'll try to see if I can "add it to my watchlist" but I'm not a user of chat pages - I only joined Wikipedia to rectify a defect! Ryderailer (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Redrose64, Thank you for your guidance, Regarding the proper location of rfc|pol|rfcid=506FBD9, I will remember your advice. Fyi, I want to clarify my previous suggestion to move the voting section. When a post mentions that consensus hasn't been reached through voting, I believe it might be misinterpreted as voting being unnecessary. To avoid confusion, I think it would be helpful to explicitly remind users that they can still vote or comment. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to quell the sockpuppetry here. I would like to ask, though -- should we really be tagging the sockpuppets in this case? This seems to be LTA trolling territory, and I think not tagging would be better per WP:DENY, though I would like to hear your input as an administrator. Thanks, JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffSpaceman: They help to judge whether a newly-discovered suspect is the same individual as the other offenders. By setting up the category page as the link, we can compare aditing patterns. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I discussed this at a different admin talk page (here, if you want to take a look), and it basically came to the exact same conclusion. I do get what both of you mean, and I'm happy to hear your perspective as an administrator. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Doctor Who/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Underwater diving/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who You like Doctor Who? What's his name then? Welcome Hello and welcome to the second issue of the new newsletter! Following the success of the first newsletter we are back to write more stuff. Articles for deletion Several articles have been nominated for deletion, such as Time War (Doctor Who), and several articles have been deleted, or merged or redirected, especially those relating to books, due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Editors can always help either by participating in the deletion discussions (which are noted on the project page), adding to such articles, or bringing attention to other such articles through AfD or the WikiProject talk page, to aid in clean-up. Notice of Draft Articles A new Doctor Who spin-off was announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con, called The War Between the Land and the Sea, and will feature old and new Whoniverse characters working for UNIT as they battle the Sea Devils. The main space article currently redirects to Whoniverse, but collaboration is currently underway in a draft article. As filming on this miniseries has recently begun, its relocation to the mains space will presumably take place soon per the recommendations laid out at WP:NTV. There is also a draft article in progress for the upcoming 2024 Christmas special. While this article won't be moved until the episode airs, any new contributions are welcome. Doctor Who News A small number of editors have recently raised questions regarding the reliability of Doctor Who News. This website is particularly used for information regarding viewing figures and the Appreciation Index of most episodes as well as some news information. If there is a better source for any information supported by this website, it should be replaced in good faith. A full consensus on whether or not to remove the information that can't be supported by a different source has not yet been reached. Any editor who has opinions on this matter should contribute to the discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content There has been lots of progress made towards recognized articles in the last two months, related to such diverse categories as series, specials, lists and episodes A sub-page has also been added to the WikiProject, to list any possible goals we can aim towards. Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject Several proposals have been laid out regarding fictional elements in the WikiProject, which includes fictional characters, locations, and more. Due to a concerning quality state regarding the large majority of them, several methods of tackling them in order to improve these articles' quality for the future have been proposed. The primary three proposals are as follows: 1. A priority list should be made to determine what articles are most pressing and in need of improvement in the WikiProject overall. Focus would be put onto important subjects and articles in a state of dubious notability that would make them viable for deletion processes such as AfD. 2. A group of articles is selected for improvement, which are ones deemed most relevant to the WikiProject for the future. Any lesser important subjects can be sidelined and worked on as editors see fit. 3. A long term goal is made to improve all elements. This will come at the caveat of taking significantly longer and requiring more heavy participation than the above two proposals, but would guarantee a slow and steady way to solve the issue. If any editors are interested in chiming into the conversation and sharing their piece on how this should be handled, or if any editors wish to help with this proposal and improve fictional elements articles, then feel free to share thoughts at the discussion's section on the article's talk page. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) "I'm not appalled by it" - The New New York Times If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for sun rise Vmworld21 (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Redrose64. I didn't realise it was actually "improper"  :) but could you clarify the differences in the two templates for that kind of situation? I've never really considered it, but if asked, I would probably assume them to be interchangeable. Thoughts? SerialNumber54129 18:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Apart from the colour, there's no difference until you go for the "show" link. At that point, {{hat}} says "The following discussion has been closed", {{cot}} doesn't. The red colour and the message suggest "nothing to see here, collapse it again and move on", but in the place you were using it, it's very much a relevant part of a keep vote. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see. Never even realised that! Thanks for the info, I'll bear that in mind for the future. SerialNumber54129 20:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise you reverted it until just now, I thought I had signed twice by mistake, that's why I removed the inital signature, now I understand why you did it, because it needs to be brief and because the RfC page can't accept tables.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 10:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The R and RP templates were already in use, as can be seen in the last version prior to @Trainsfan13’s edits - how do their edits violate CITEVAR if they’re using templates that were already in use? Danners430 (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only since this edit, which I would have partially-reverted if I had spotted it at the time that it happened. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An, that was a while ago so I forgot about it

I have to ask though - since there appears to be no way whatsoever to alter the citation variation (and by the way it appears I followed the process discussed with that edit - make the edit, and since it didn’t get reverted there wasn’t a problem), what IS the process if someone feels a different variation of citations is better? At the moment it does almost feel like people gatekeeping such changes and completely barring them… Danners430 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion on the article's talk page. Demonstrate that the referencing method(s) used in the article as it currently stands are unsatisfactory. Present evidence that your preferred method is more suitable to the article than current methods. Be prepared to discuss with anybody else who comes in. You may attract the attention of others by leaving a note at e.g. WT:UKRAIL (also the talk pages of other WikiProjects whose banners are at the top of the talk page) inviting people to comment - templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since your last amendment on this template, someone has deleted Goosehouse railway station that was stated to have been opened 1847-1849.

I am sure that you, with your deep knowledge of the area in question, would have made that change already if you had any reason to doubt its validity, so can you please reinstate it.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophon Philosopher: Butt (1995) does list the station with those dates, on the Bolton, Blackburn, Clitheroe and West Yorkshire Railway. But I can't find any mention of it in Marshall (1969), who doesn't describe any passenger stations between [Over] Darwen and Lower Darwen. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Redrose64 thank you for the tips on merging. I'm trying to help clear the backlog of requests. I'll keep your pointers in mind as I keep working on it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qalb alasid (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for fixing this double categorization. I had no idea how it happened nor any clue on how to fix it. Thanks for catching it! Nayyn (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayyn: Basically, I looked at other similar categories - such as Category:2023 crimes in Mexico, Category:2022 crimes in Mexico, Category:2024 crimes in the United States, Category:2024 crimes in Ecuador - to see what was in the page source, and found that all of them used exactly the same code, i.e. {{YYYY crimes in countryname category header}}. Therefore, I edited Category:2024 crimes in Mexico, and replaced everything in there with {{YYYY crimes in countryname category header}} and saved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks again Nayyn (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you explain why my use of this external link is improper and what you meant by "query string" please ? Spectritus (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article, per Wikipedia:External links. We also do not use external link format to link to Wikipedia in other languages, see Help:Interlanguage links.

In a URL such as https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Baker?wprov=sfla1 the query string is the part after the ? (query) character. In this case, it's documented at wikitech:Provenance, but I really don't think that it's being used properly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why do people keep using colons inside syntaxhighlight? They don't indent, but are displayed literally. In case you're curious, it's a bug in Visual Editor. There's a phab ticket for it somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2025 disestablishments in North America indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 23:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: Although I created the original version of this page, the page logs show that the most recent two incarnations were created by Daniel James Mcmahon (talk · contribs). Judging by the other categories that they have created (several of which have been deleted again), this user seems intent on WP:CRYSTALBALLing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could u elaborate why you put all of them to past members? because there's no statement about the group status, thank you Kayanad (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kayanad: There is an ongoing discussion on that exact matter at Talk:One Direction#RfC: Band status and members in the infobox, so for the time being the article should not be changed until there is consensus in that discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hi there, thanks for your edit summary note on North Kent Line. I didn't change that formatting - the anonymous edit before mine did, and I was just patching up the broken part. However, I actually wasn't aware of the MOS:NOBR guideline, so thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: The {{ubl}} template makes a list, the individual items of which are separated uning the pipe character. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose64 -- was there a reason you removed me from the admin newsletter subs? For the record, I'd prefer to receive it even if hibernating as I still intermittently check my talk page and on return it forms a convenient summary of issues of which I need to be aware. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: Delivery of the October message failed, the log shows that you opted-out of message delivery. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I did??? I'm very confused now. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a template at the top of your user talk page. Something like {{nobots}}, but not necessarily that specific one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you meant by this edit summary. When I marked the ER as "already done", I was referring to this edit. Was I supposed to do what you did (i.e., change the title)? M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: Exactly: the first parameter is for the name of the page for which an edit is being requested, accordingly the OP had put |Template:Uw-spamublock. Since the edit was to Template:Uw-spamublock, you should not have altered it to |Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace as nobody edited that page, nor intended that page to be edited. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened: it was altered by the "Edit Request Tool", that's why I didn't notice it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I sent you one last night my time ... did you get it? Just asking now because time zones can be ... interesting. Graham87 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've never started one of those before, so making it my first probably isn't a good idea. I would prefer that it be done properly, and so have a good chance of succeeding. In the past I might have suggested RexxS (talk · contribs) or Kudpung (talk · contribs). Try HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about the re-RfA? I'd be happy to, and Redrose can co-nom if he's happy. Redrose would do a better job of addressing the more technical things you use the tools for. You might have to agree to something regarding blocks, like not blocking anyone who hasn't been reported by another editor or similar but I think it's a winnable battle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is about the re-RFA. Yes there'll be a very strong pledge re blocks ... and a refocus. That's why I was thinking of Redrose as a co-nom because he can speak to my technical work. You don't have to start the page, just say a few words about what I've done in that arena when the time comes. Or if you are most comfortable just putting these thoughts in a !support vote, that works too. @HJ Mitchell: yes, I'd be happy for you to co-nom me too, as a lead nom or however the cookie crumbles. I have a couple of other people lined up, but your thoughts would be good to add to the mix as well. Graham87 (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, good to see you here. Graham87, I would like to see what you'd write up for the nomination before I sign on; obviously you can anticipate some of the questions and it would be good to work on some possible answers. You got my email; a group email with Redrose and Harry might be helpful. Harry, Redrose, just to be honest, I did not agree unconditionally, but we can talk about that. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Vanamonde93, who I've also been conversing with. Now we're all here, and this'll end up being public anyway, I may as well say this now: I'll pledge not to block at all, just to report when I find another user's done something wrong. And I should find a lot less weird stuff once the watchlist cleanup I'm about to start is done. I don't have any strong opinions on where we should go from here in terms of who starts the page, etc., but some of you know the modern practice re that a huge amount better than I do so I'll defer to y'all. The main part of my nom acceptance (is that how it would work?) would basically be a paraphrase of what I said in this message. Graham87 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems very similar to my RfA - I passed as a technical admin with a similar but less strict pledge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist purging done ... it's now 1,173 items (almost all articles) lighter ... much better! Graham87 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really do watchlist purging, but I'm quite discriminate about what gets on there in the first place. I'm at about 7,200 pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either; this is my first full watchlist purge since 2007 and I've otherwise done only a couple of minor narrow topic ones. It's only got a few hundred active pages now. Graham87 (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RFA page has been created (but is not live) at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2. If you want to add your piece, feel free. Graham87 (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the revision of the article before I even edited for the first time, some of those tags were already there; from the article's original creation in fact. Advise taking it up with the editors who originally added, or those who applied them inconsistently, rather than singling me out for applying consistency and sticking with the original citation style set out. Kyteto (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

In the most detailed navbox that you have added to the article, someone has altered your entry of Copley Hill claiming doubts on there being a passenger station there and replaced it with Farnley and Wortley. HAVE YOU ANY VIEWS ON THAT ALTERATION?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophon Philosopher: Why are you shouting? Anyway, it's shown on three different maps:

• Conolly, W. Philip (January 1976). British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer (5th ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 21, section C2 (Leeds inset). ISBN 0-7110-0320-3. EX/0176.
• Batty, Stephen R. (1989). Rail Centres: Leeds/Bradford. Shepperton: Ian Allan. endpapers. ISBN 0-7110-1821-9.

and also on this diagram. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the last part was in capitals. I must have accidentally caught something in error. All I wondered why it was that someone had altered the navbox that you had gone to so much trouble to compose which adds much the artcle on that railway station.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]