User talk:Redrose64

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 Signature icon.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
Miscellaneous

The Village Pump[edit]

Hello, I have moved the discussion at Talk:Michael John Graydon Soroka to WP:VPP#DefaultSort for full name redirects (which was actually created before the RFC) per your suggestions. Would you mind answering there, since I believe the question itself has merit? Thank you, DePlume (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

My RFC on Hamdi Ulukaya's page[edit]

Hi Redrose64! I've shortened the sentence on my RFC on Hamdi Ulukaya's page. I'm so sorry about that. Is that enough? Do I have to shorten it even further? If not, do I have to change the ID request so my question will show? I'm sorry, it's just that the wording of his lede sentence has been an issue for years. I'm just hoping finally reach a consensus. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Clear Looking Glass: Don't change the |rfcid= value, they are set by Legobot and are keyed to the bot's private table of RfCs, if you set your own value it will compromise the RfC processing. As for the statement length, you will know if it's short enough by waiting for the next Legobot run (once per hour) and checking the listing page. In this case, your edit that significantly shortened the statement was at 22:18, 6 April 2021 and the Legobot run following that was at 23:01, where we find this effect, so all is OK now. Thanks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Are these reliable soucres?[edit]

Dear Redrose64, are these reliable soucres for wikipedia page on british rail EMU's http://www.igg.org.uk/rail/00-app3-4/ap3-emu.htm and http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/vehicles/item/1995-1772 — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talkcontribs) 20:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No and no. The first because it fails WP:SPS, the second because it throws a HTTP 404. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
How come it works for me the link? I did use Google Chrome.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC on UN DESA 2019 Eritrea population estimate[edit]

Regarding your edit summary: there's a 3-paragraph explanation of the issue starting with "Overview with sources:" at the RfC on the Eritrean population estimates. The question is then stated more clearly in a fourth paragraph. I guess I could have worded the RfC in a more general way, but I thought it better that it include a well-defined question, so that a clear decision could result from it. If you feel yourself to be uninvolved or could find an uninvolved person willing to read through the issue and arguments and !votes and close the RfC, that would be helpful... Boud (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Boud: Which edit summary? Please use diffs if you wish to discuss a particular edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
This shows your edit summary. Sorry, I thought it was obvious, since you edited my note extending the lifetime of the RfC on the Eritrean population estimates. Boud (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that. Here's why: in brief, Legobot will copy the markup of your statement (from the end of the {{rfc}} tag through the first timestamp) to the list of active RfCs.
This shows how the RfC was first shown in the listings: it's in line with WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief and with WP:WRFC#Specificity. After the thirty days, it was automatically removed; it had not changed in the meantime. Then you reactivated the RfC but added your new timestamp (plus a comment) before the statement, which had this effect: people reading the RfC listings are told absolutely nothing about the issue, save for the name of the page where it is occurring.
My edit triggered this amendment. See WP:RFC#Duration insert a current timestamp immediately before the original timestamp of the opening statement and WP:RFC#Restarting an RfC be sure to insert a current timestamp after the RfC statement, and before its original timestamp. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

need assistance in removing the topmost paragraph on Hajime Sorayama the Japanese artist wikipedia article[edit]

Hi Wikipedian Redrose64,

I am wondering if you can help to remove the 2017 topmost disclaimer from Hajime Sorayama wiki article that reads "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject preventing article from being verifiable........"

It is now 4 years there without need, placing doubt in accuracy and no one has made any comments that the article is anything other than accurate because it is based on chronologial fact. No one has disputed in years and it took so much effort to put this info online for all to benefit. If they chose to dispute anything it can be changed or the disclaimer put back up.

" Wikipedia rules state that it may be deleted because Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others.

Most of the time, you will find that it's fine to assume consensus, even if just for now, as it's more important to keep editing and cooperating smoothly in good faith as much as possible."

Thank you for your direct help or if you can pass this on as I cannot see / understand how to proceed to delete it.

Bubwater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubwater (talkcontribs) 05:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

LSWR O2 class attribution problem fixed[edit]

LSWR O2 class attribution problem fixed by adding the copied attribution link in.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

No, you made it worse. We do not put comments like that into article text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64:How can it be fixed so the copied info can still be there?--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Do not persist in your repeated restoration of the problematic content. Why are you not discussing on the article's talk page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Great Western Railway (train operating company)[edit]

Redrose64Great Western Railway (train operating company) has third rail stock the British rail class 769 are tri-model. This means that they can run off 25kv ac OLE, 750 dc third rail and diesel.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: This is interesting. Your edit summary stated "GWR is a TOC, not a rail line; it does not have any third rail trains at all". I can't argue with that, and assume it applies also to OHLE? I would be happy that any reference to track gauge and electrification are removed from the infobox (and rest of the article). The length is probably pertinent as it shows (if it's accurate) the distances the TOC is responsible for providing services on. If you're agreed, I'll move this conversation to the article's talk page and do the necessary on the article. Bazza (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Of course GWR has OHLE trains, I see them here in Didcot every day. I Like The british Rail Class 483 is disruptively adding factual errors, copyright violations and outright trivia to a variety of articles, and they seriously need to learn what constitutes a reliable source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64:The british rail class 769 are third EMU's here is a link. http://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2020/09/01/first-uks-tri-mode-train-will-run-to-gatwick-airport/ http://anonw.com/tag/class-319-flex-class-769-train/ http://www.railmagazine.com/tag/class-769 --I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I think Bazza misunderstood your edit summary (and initially I did so too because I missed the word "trains" in it) and thought that you were pointing out that the electrification is not a property of the TOC itself but of the railway lines or the vehicles. I can agree with Bazza here but that's another topic. --PhiH (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64 and PhiH: I probably did misunderstand. I know, as well, that GWR has OHLE trains; I had assumed that the infobox parameter about electrification referred to lines, rather than trains which made sense after misunderstanding the edit summary. To clarify for me: does the el(electrification) parameter in Template:Infobox rail company refer to the rolling stock the company operates, or the lines over which it runs services? If the latter, then 750 DC should be included for GWR's services over the North Downs Line; if the former, then should 750 DC be added once British Rail Class 769s have started to be used by GWR? Bazza (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64:,@PhiH:,@Bazza:. The British rail class 769 are now In testing so they are in use with GWR.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
GWR do run over lines that are electrified on the third-rail principle, but they do not make use of that facility. Their services over the North Downs line are diesel. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64:They are in the process of testing the units then they will take over the North Downs Line the testing is over the North Downs Line to the Third Rail shoes and electrics. So I would say to keep.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Where is your reliable source that they are actually in use on passenger service? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Slenderman7676: (because this revert directly concerns material discussed in this section} You restored all three references, which as I pointed out, are all inadmissible for different reasons: (i) the first source describes future events that might happen, not past events that have happened; (ii) the second is a blog, which fails WP:SPS, the third (whilst it threw a HTTP 404 at the time, has been amended) is not a single source but a search results page - there is no text there that directly supports the content of the Wikipedia article. Thus, the material as a whole is also inadmissible because the policy on verifiability has not been met. I ask you to revert your edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion - re User:I Like The british Rail Class 483[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerned about a user's general behaviour. Thank you. — Nightfury 09:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

D.A.V. Group of Schools - RfC Tag removed[edit]

Hi. Recently I submitted an article on the DAV Group of schools in Chennai - India. This is a 50 year old school with 10 branches and 16,000 currently enrolled students. I believe that the submission was unfairly rejected based on the grounds that it sounded like an advertisement, which it is not. With a view to getting other editors involved to rectify this injustice I started a RfC and you seem to have deleted it. I would much appreciate it if you can edit the RfC so that other members of the community can get involved in this discussion. Thank you. --Ragsram (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ragsram: You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of WP:RFC. It is not a general appeal for help, it is a venue of late (or last) resort when all other avenues are exhausted. See WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCNOT. The WP:AFC process has methods for obtaining assistance, you should be using these. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hawes Junction[edit]

Hi, Regarding the Hawes Junction track layout I think it can be shown by plans published on the the internet that there was a trailing slip from the up main line to the turntable line and the lie- by line. All of this is meant in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c7:5f05:e601:f8e0:18cd:affb:7010 (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The diagram in Major Pringle's report shows that the turntable road connects into the lie-by siding (these are on the down side of the double-track main line); there is a track connecting the lie-by siding with the back platform line (this being on the up side) which crosses the main lines over two common (plain diamond) crossings, there are no slips. To connect with the down main here would require a facing slip instead of one common crossing, and the Midland Railway famously built the whole line from Settle Junction to Petteril Bridge Junction without any facing points, except one pair each at those two locations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawing my RFC or waiting it out?[edit]

Hi! Sorry for bugging you, but I just did an RFC on Viggo Mortensen's talk page, asking about his lede sentence/nationality. I wondered if users thought his lede sentence should say "American" or "Danish-American" or whatever else, but I'm thinking of withdrawing the RFC because the answer is obvious (that his lede sentence should only say "American"). I re-read past discussions on his nationality a decade ago and a user said that the lede should only say "American", and pointed out Wiki policies on this and the circumstance of his life. Mortensen was born in America, is most notable there and still spends most of his time in the United States. Also, while he has dual U.S/Denmark citizenship, sources state that he has lived most of his life outside of Denmark and currently resides elsewhere.

I have participated in various nationality/citizenship discussions in the past and the reasoning above is why many notable Americans or Canadians do not have their dual citizenship mentioned. So, should I close/withdraw my RFC or should I just wait it out? And if I can/do close/withdraw the RFC, should I post the reasons above as to why I'm closing it? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know which RfC you refer to, because you have not provided any links. The procedure for ending an RfC early is given at WP:RFCEND. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. Here's the RFC I started. And thanks for the link! I just read the RFCEND policy and saw the first point: "1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the rfc template." Given the information in my above post about the details of Viggo Mortensen's life, his Danish citizenship isn't notable to his lede sentence/nationality as he's American born, is most notable there and has lived most of his life outside of Denmark (mainly working and residing in the U.S and other places). Anyways, I've read the post, but I'm not sure if I simply end the RFC with the "closed rfc top/bottom" template with my reasoning, or just simply blank the section, as the page says you remove the RFC template from the talk page? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Since nobody else has posted there, you are permitted to blank the whole section per WP:REDACT. But if anybody else posts to the section before you remove it, WP:TPO comes into play, which means that (in general) you can't remove somebody else's post except for certain reasons - making a fair comment in an ongoing RfC would not be one of them. WP:RFCEND#Duration says To end an RfC manually, remove the {{rfc}} template from the talk page. This refers to the portion within and including the pairs of braces, which in this case is {{rfc|bio|media|soc|rfcid=EE33368}} - everything outside these braces should not be removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help and the information you've provided! I've removed the section now. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
This is to show appreciation for aiding me to solve my problem. Celestina007 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
This is either WP:Articles for deletion/Regen power Pty ltd or WP:Village pump (technical)#Could This Be A Glitch? - Face-smile.svg Thank you anyway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Dates in templates[edit]

Hi Redrose64. I am trying to find help at both the pt-wiki and en-wiki and came across your name at the Village Pump, here and get the feeling that you understand this sort of Greek-to-me stuff. What date format must I use in "date = {{subst:#210420}}" and what must I leave or replace in the template? Thanks for any help you may provide. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This has been sorted. Someone at the pt-wiki has helped me. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Rui Gabriel Correia: In my post I wrote
{{#time:Ymd|20150131 - 1 day}} → 20150130 and {{#time:Ymd|20150131 + 1 day}} → 20150201
Here, {{#time:}} is a parser function that works with dates and times; Ymd is an output format recognised by that function; 20150131 - 1 day is input data for the function. That does not mean to replace the letters Ymd with some figures (presumably a date); the part which may be altered is the bit that says 20150131 - 1 day, where 20150131 is a way of writing 31 January 2015. I guess you mean that you want to manipulate the date 20 April 2021 in some way, but without context (such as a link to the page you are working on) I cannot assist further. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Actually the example was merely a reference to where I got the feeling that you would know about these things. But you are absolutely right that I wanted to manipulate the date. I was trying to add an entry to the submissions list for pages to be merged. I was using FastButtons, so I cannot show you the exact example — or a new example (because I would need to generate a new merger proposal) —, because once saved it is not possible to see the raw code as it displayed before saving. The whole thing is quite unhelpful, with little indication of what must be substituted and what must remain. You can have an idea here. What I find intriguing is the date format, because usually even the inputting is done in DDMMYYYY format, and then the coding is done automatically, but here the input is actually YYYYMMDD (and not YYMMDD, as per template). Also, the editor who fixed it also removed the invisible text, which in all instances where I have seen it used in maintenance requests is usually left as is, sometimes explicitly saying "Do not remove text bla bla bla. But thanks for taking a keen interest. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This will give you the eight-digit string that you need:
{{subst:#time:Ymd|now}}
It yields 20210420 and works on all language versions of Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

"Fake" timestamp[edit]

I wasn't trying to use a fake time stamp. It was a simple mistake thinking the initiated template was for when the closure request was initiated not when the discussion was. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: You made your edit at 02:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC) but set the initiated to 14:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC) which (at that moment) was twelve hours in the future - it has to be fake, there no way it was genuine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
That isn't my edit..... this is. All I did was copy the the time from my signature when I previewed my ~~~~ signature. Please stop assuming bad faith. It was a genuine mistake. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay maybe you weren't assuming bad faith, and you just made a mistake too. It seems you @me and fixed my separate mistake instead of the user that did the 12 hour in future timestamp. I know I made a mistake on my comment but it wasn't the one you are referring to here. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, yes, sorry about that. There were two requests where the {{initiated}} had been set incorrectly, both by users with names beginning "Wi"; the one with the 12-hour future time was by Wingedserif (talk · contribs) - see thread below. Consider: it's pointless putting the current timestamp into {{initiated}}, because that time can simply be read from the end of the post. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverting ships in the night[edit]

Sorry, I didn't mean to revert your addition of a closure request ([1]): I have no idea how I did that. I just meant to edit the commented code at the top of the section, to give better instructions, since I had been confused when I opened my request. Thanks for adding that text back in. —Wingedserif (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Premature closures and COMPUNITS[edit]

I would have preferred to answer your question at the place where it was started, but that discussion was closed. Hence my reply here. The answer to your direct question is that the editor was engaged in an edit war at the article, as evidenced by these 3 edits [2] [3] [4]. It is my opinion, shared by multiple other editors that the editor in question is choosing to implement one aspect of WP:COMPUNITS (the deprecation of IEC units) while ignoring the requirement to disambiguate. I see that the same editor has started a discussion at WT:COMPUNITS, but (as already remarked by another editor) with an aggressive tone. In my experience, discussions starting that way rarely end happily, which is why I've not yet dipped my toe in the water there. There is also an unwritten rule at WP:MOSNUM that issues receive attention though once they have been debated at multiple articles. Do you think it is appropriate to continue the discussion there? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit war continues. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
If there is a real WP:3RR problem, take it to WP:ANEW; otherwise, keep it in one place. It's certainly not appropriate to continue it here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Short summaries[edit]

Good afternoon Redrose,
Way back, I remember reading the guidelines (MoS) for Short summaries within the Episodes section of fiction series articles such as Line of Duty. Now I cannot find it, and I feel sure you could point me in the right direction. All the best!
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Oof, it's been a while. I do know that they shouldn't be copypasted from pages like this, that would be a copyvio. Perhaps MarnetteD (talk · contribs) knows. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Should you be reading that?
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
There is MOS:TVPLOT. I haven't followed the changes at MOSTV the way I have MOSFILM over the years so it could well have been rewritten several times. Copying from other sources has become a problem. For example the plot summaries at List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes read the same as the ones used on my Comcast/Infinity menu at times. Though it could be a chicken/egg situation. Regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Malformed RfC[edit]

I think we're having a miscommunication. Sorry for repeating what I said on article talk, but: I didn't start that malformed RfC. I only reconfigured the talk page. The now-blocked user went back and added the RfC template after his comments, inserting it into the midst of an ongoing conversation during an edit conflict. He didn't write any statement after it, so my response to him, which I had already written, got automatically picked up by the bot as the "statement". I was surprised to see it, as well. - CorbieVreccan 21:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Legobot looks for the {{rfc}} tag. It then works forward from that point until it finds the next valid timestamp. Whatever is in between is taken as the RfC statement; that plus the timestamp are copied to the RfC listing page. So if an {{rfc}} tag is placed immediately before an existing signed post, Legobot assumes that the signed post is the statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Nuvola apps cookie.svg Happy First Edit Day, Redrose64, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! History DMZ (HQ) (wire) 04:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

First edit day![edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, Redrose64. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Zai (💬📝⚡️) 18:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg

Zai (💬📝⚡️) 18:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh location map changes[edit]

Hey, as you recently chimed in on the issue of the Artsakh/NK location map at Talk:Stepanakert - I raised the issue of recent mass changes to the location map for Nagorno-Karabakh articles on the incident board Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ListeningBronco, which are akin to the recent edits that were made by sockpuppets by EljanM. Do you possibly have the time to look at this issue? AntonSamuel (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Weather Data and Instrumentation/doc[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:WikiProject Weather Data and Instrumentation/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of RFC tag[edit]

Hi there, I'm confused as to why you removed the RFC tag from Talk:Asian-American studies. I recognise that it is set in the context of a move. But the main issue is not the move, but the guidelines stipulated in WP:MOS. — Caorongjin (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Caorongjin: The discussion begins Should the article name be reverted to "Asian American studies" - it's clearly a discussion about whether to rename the page, and the last row at WP:RFCNOT directs you to Moving a page or Requested moves for such cases. Discuss by all means: but not by way of a RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this clarification. This is my first time writing a RFC so any guidance would be helpful. As I stated, this was the context of the RFC and has direct implications on the article.
Would you suggest the discussion be better framed: "Should MOS:HYPHEN be updated to drop the hyphen from ethnic groups?" Or should I simply change the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Hyphenating racial identities to a RFC with that statement? — Caorongjin (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
It's too early for an RfC. See WP:RFCBEFORE - have all of those suggestions been exhausted? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I have discussed this on the MOS talk and raised the query against the move closer, the latter of whom recommended an RFC as one of the options. As such, no local discussion has given a substantial response about the actual query. I don't think any of the bulleted points on WP:RFCBEFORE fit. There is nothing primarily being disputed (hence I have not opened a MR), and is fundamentally about the guidelines of WP:MOS. — Caorongjin (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to be a bother, but would you say I have exhausted the suggestions of WP:RFCBEFORE? — Caorongjin (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
RfC should be a process of last resort, when all other methods have failed and there really isn't any other means of sorting a dispute. The issue, as I understand it, is whether or not to hyphenate "Asian American". Will it stop white American cops from killing innocent non-white people? No. Is anybody taking offence at the presence or absence of the hyphen? Not that I can see. Sort out the bigger issues, please, before holding an RfC for what is, to be frank, trivial. There are plenty of badly-sourced BLPs that need sorting out. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I have never made this claim that you are making about anybody killing anybody and, frankly, find it offensive.
I completely disagree with your value statement: the point is that hyphens do offend. That is why every other manual of style has dropped it. — Caorongjin (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Somebody once described Nelson Mandela, in his presence, as "African-American". That is offensive. Please do not post links to pages that fire up JavaScript that causes my browser to run so slowly that I have to crash out the process and reboot. Such links offend me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • unsolicited third opinion from random passerby: Arguing about hyphens, dashes, or other small horizontal lines is generally not worth the effort. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Winslow railway station[edit]

I suspect it is on your watchlist but just in case: I have done a rather heavy spring-clean of Winslow railway station so would appreciate a quick review to check that I haven't chucked any of the family silver in the process. I am "quietly confident" so no worries if you don't have time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: With very few exceptions, I unwatched all railway station articles last year, when ProcrastinatingReader made it clear that they WP:OWN all railway station infoboxes. I had decided that I wouldn't have time to spare to clean up the mess that would inevitably ensue, which should have become PR's task - but they have made extremely few edits to railway stations. The only serious station editing I've done in recent months was to rescue Llandinam railway station from AfD. I didn't touch the infobox in that one, even if it may contain errors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, no worries, I made an assumption that you watched the stations around Oxford. It is all too easy to end up watching >1000 articles and never do anything else! It didn't occur to me the check the infobox though, so I had better do that now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to hear that you don't want to work on railway articles anymore; on a number of occasions I have seen a potential dispute and stood back saying, "not to worry, Redrose will be along in a minute and I'll take his decision to be probably correct". What gives? I can have a word with ProcrastinatingReader - he's already chased off RexxS so I think he's due one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: This goes back much earlier than RexxS, to the middle of last year. In July 2020, ProcrastinatingReader decided that {{Infobox GB station}} should go, and without the courtesy of even mentioning their idea to any railway-related WikiProject, went straight to TfD. The whole thing was steamrollered through by those who never get involved in articles about British railway stations, taking no heed of those who were using the infobox day upon day. I am still waiting for answers to a number of questions, which ProcrastinatingReader either (i) claims were answered (they weren't); (ii) claims that I never asked; or (iii) has ignored entirely. Before that debacle ProcrastinatingReader had shown absolutely zero interest in railway station articles, and virtually none since. It's pissed me off so much that I've unwatched something like 6,000 pages, having decided that if there are any problems with any article about a British railway station, I really don't care any more and it's up to ProcrastinatingReader to sort it out. If they want to WP:OWN the station templates, they should take proper responsibility. They mess with it, they must clean it up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
This has become a textbook case of WP:PRAM, and I don't think it's right that you drag another editor's name through the mud like this. The changes all had consensus. If you don't like it that's your right, but you don't have a right to act as though some great wrong was perpetrated or that the editor acted inappropriately. It's unseemly, doubly so given your status as an administrator, and I think you should stop. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Stop editing railway articles altogether? Do you really want that? Or stop being absolutely furious about how RexxS was treated? Not a chance. One of our most knowledgeable experts in a number of fields - particularly accessibility - and he is treated like dirt. The shame of it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
No, I'd like for you to stop piling all your woes on ProcrastinatingReader. Why, for example, am I off the hook? I supported the TfD (had in the past, too). I helped with the implementation. I defended PR's conduct, then and now. Plenty of other editors did too. When third parties reviewed the situation, such as that ANI report, no one had a problem. And yet, it's all on PR, as though there are no other editors on this project. I wasn't involved in the RexxS arbitration (which came well after all this anyway, but whatever), but I tend to think the Arbitration Committee bears a good deal more responsibility than the editor who opened the case. No, instead, we have what amounts to a whispering campaign, an administrator accusing an editor of nameless crimes. If you can't forgive PR's conduct (as you see it), then I'd say you two options: seek dispute resolution, or walk away. This third option you're pursuing, in which you are sort of disengaged but also taking potshots, isn't tenable. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BR class 302[edit]

Thanks for sorting out the references, that was going to be my next job. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: What amazed me was the number of spelling mistakes, and they weren't even consistent - for instance, "Longworth" was misspelled three different ways. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thought I'd caught all those! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:HA postcode area § Putting the lie to postal convenience[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:HA postcode area § Putting the lie to postal convenience. Thanks. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:FD38:87ED:46E0:A2D6 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Class 47 BTC numbers[edit]

Hi,

While August 68 was the definitive end of the use of D and E prefixes, they were already being deleted (painted over) by the end of 1967. Unfortunately my original source was a magazine that I no longer have to quote. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: I have seen no evidence that any D prefixes were painted over before August 1968, the reason being to avoid duplication with steam locos. Many were not obscured until the whole number was painted out for TOPS renumbering. The E prefixes were definitely retained until the TOPS number was applied to the loco concerned, none of them retained the four figures without the E. If these prefixes had been removed, there would have been duplication with classes 08, 10, 22, 24 and 29. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, confusion on my part, the E numbers ref should have been in parentheses, it was D numbers that were painted out. IIRC the majority of electric locos had cast numbers rather than painted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Although I have seen the odd rare image of green 47s with the D number painted out, it was usually when they were repainted in blue (prior to TOPS renumbering) that they were given the number without the "D". Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Briton Ferry railway station[edit]

The Wikipedia article on Briton Ferry railway station appears to have been re-written, according to what the person claims and mentions the two stations of Briton Ferry West and Briton Ferry East that were replaced by this station. Has Wikipedia ever had articles on either of those two closed stations?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not touching this, mainly because you have not provided any relevant links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Does not the heading of this query, viz. Briton Ferry railway station and the mention in the query of the Wikipedia article about Briton Ferry railway station not suffice? Do the editorial panel of Wikipedia use different logic to normal people and need guidance to understand what a five year old at nursery school could understand?
Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The heading of this section could be referring to railway stations of Briton Ferry in general terms, particularly since your first sentence refers to three stations (and I am aware of five different stations at Briton Ferry); however the two links originally provided are misleading, since both lead to articles about electoral wards in Wales, and do not mention railway stations at all. I should not have to guess what you are thinking of. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Is is possible then to answer the last sentence in the original query, which is has Wikipedia ever published articles on the two railway stations of Briton Ferry West and Briton Ferry East? (Note that in this response, I have removed the two links to what you state are electoral wards in Wales. I know that you are keen on links and it appears just a coincidence that both railway stations and both electoral wards share exactly the same name).

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@LordSavage1997 has kindly agreed to assist in the matter of what the final sentence in my original request asked for.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Richard B. Hetnarski Wikipedia Page[edit]

Re: " Presumably you refer to this edit. Please take a closer look at what AnomieBOT actually did - it added |date=May 2021 to a maintenance tag that was already there.'

Thank you very much for pointing this out! Cayman42 (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Creating a railway station article and using s-by-s maps[edit]

Hi RedRose64, I was just wondering if you could give me some advice...I recently created a few new articles for the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway as well as the Merthyr, Tredegar and Abergavenny Railway. I was wondering if I reference the side by side maps on os maps...are they reliable sources? If they show the site of the station? cheers RailwayJG (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

What kind of text are you intending to use these OS maps as sources for? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Mostly to reference the location of the station and give verity to the location of it now...as in help to clarify the station site and any like mills, good sheds, sidings etc that were likely associated with the station. RailwayJG (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
For the location of the station within the surrounding area, yes: you can use scales as small as 1:63360 (one inch to the mile) for that - but 1:250,000 is too small. Regarding goods sheds and similar, it would depend on the scale of the map even more - you would need a larger scale map, something like 1:10560 (six inches to the mile) or better - a 1:63360 map isn't good enough.
One thing that people sometimes try to do is to use OS maps as sources for dates of opening and closure, or for station names. They really aren't any good for either of those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay RedRose64 will take your advice and what not to do onboard for future articles I get round to making for any stations missing. Cheers RailwayJG (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting my link[edit]

Why are you reverting my link to Pacer (British Rail)? Special:Contributions/146.90.155.42 User talk:146.90.155.42 07:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have never reverted any links to that article, whether made by you or anybody else. The only edit to that article of yours that I have reverted so far is this one, which was your reversion of a perfectly-correct edit that had been made by XLinkBot (talk · contribs) to eliminate a spam youtube link that had been added contrary to WP:YOUTUBE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Signature image[edit]

This is at AN now, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Almaty - images in signatures. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not sure they got the memo - to me this qualifies as disruption by putting it in in the first place, and then readding it after advised to stop and remove per policy. Pretty clear that they're trying to give their comments more precedence by using the WHO flag in their signature - and this is similar to the past ANI thread about their disruption before that led to them "vanishing" to avoid sanctions that would've been virtually certain had they not left. For completeness, also noting their past 3RR violations in the topic area. I'm not sure if you'd feel comfortable blocking as NOTHERE, but I certainly think more should be done - just wanted you to have the full backstory on the user given that you attempted to enforce the signature policy on them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No its not trying to give my comments more precedence, its just I found a pretty signature tutorial that had flags on it, and I don't find it nice when people decide to change my talk page comments. I'll try to find it. Previous discussions arent relevant here, anyone can see a block log. -- Almaty 18:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
And not that it is relevant, but that 3RR violation was intentional to get a block during a period of extreme wikistress. And then my topic ban was unanimously removed by the administrators. I find it troubling when people go right through peoples wiki history to find any possible behaviour pattern right back to the start of them editing, and that is why I left the last time. -- Almaty 18:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't have been the signature tutorial, and as mentioned the policy clearly prevents images. in signatures. Furthermore, I quite frankly don't believe you merely did it because it was "pretty". You selected the WHO flag because you wanted to try and give the aura of "officiality" or "better science" or something similar to your comments - otherwise there's better images you could've just as easily selected that would've been "prettier". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I did it because my username is a metaphor for the Alma Ata declaration, seriously that's it. Also to quote why I left in the ANI thread from last year On wikipedia you are able to just ignore all the positive things, and bring up unrelated stuff from the past, presenting it without nuance, without tone of voice, literally forever, to prove anything about an editor you do not like for whatever reason and you are doing so again. -- Almaty 18:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Almaty: I find it rich that you don't want me to post to your talk page, yet you seem fine about posting on mine. You need to find that tutorial that describes how to use an image, and fast: if I see you make any post where your signature contains any image whatsoever, and which is timed later than 18:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (the time that I saved this post), I shall open a thread about you at WP:AN, in which I shall link this revision of your talk page together with this thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Look I did follow a tutorial, I can't find it right this second. The reason I don't like people commenting on my talk page is the exact same reason I gave for leaving. I can't find the tutorial right this second, but I promise you it exists. Lets take the heat out of this discussion and not threaten to do anything, if it is that offensive I'll remove the image. -- Almaty 18:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
And I really, really hope that wikipedians dont think a badly formatted signature give[s] the aura of "officiality" or "better science" or something similar just saying that gave me ample reason to remove it. --Almaty 19:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
For reference, I can't find exactly the tute, but here is a Signpost article about it. If you feel strongly about signatures please update the policy to either for or against flags, to avoid unnecessary wikipedia arguments. --Almaty (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
You blew it by making this post that used an image in the signature. You're now at AN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:WikiProject Music[edit]

Hi Redrose64! Thank you for noting the lack of a Template:WikiProject Music for article assessment on Talk:Environment and intelligence. I shall be investigating why Wikipedia:RATER even allowed me to add the project - when it also presented me with "needs-infobox" and "needs-image" options, I reasonably presumed that the template existed. It made me concerned that there is no such music template for such an important project, so I have inquired at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music about what to do. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bibeyjj: It was their decision some years ago that there should not be a banner template. There has been one in the past, but it has existed only for short periods of time - it has been created and deleted several times, see for instance Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 27#Template:WikiProject Music. If you check the archives of , you will find several relevant threads, most recently Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 39#Recreating Template:WikiProject Music. Generally speaking, a more specific template such as {{WikiProject Classical music}}, {{WikiProject Jazz}} or {{WikiProject Rock music}} should be used. These are just examples: there are plenty of others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edits[edit]

Hi Redrose64, I was wondering why you reverted my recent edits on Template:Grading scheme I chose to update it because the time stamps for the old articles were very outdated. Do you mind explaining your choice? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kokopelli7309: I can't find any evidence that you discussed your changes before making the edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)