This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Despite massive opposition at the first RM, Dicklyon sneaked in a second RM just days later, and we've now go a dashed, non-capitalised title for the Redhill to Tonbridge Line article. There is also another mass-RM request running (notice posted at WT:UKT). This is getting well beyond WP:DISRUPTIVE now. Mjroots ( talk) 16:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, in April 2015, you removed my edit on Ruth Davidson's page regarding her breaking her back during Officer Training. I was her training officer at the time and thus know very well that she received her injury at the Army officer Selection Board at Westbury not at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst at Camberley. The issue is that I cannot provide a citation for this as it would be inappropriate and not possible to provide her medical documentation. I could however provide a link to AOSB at Westbury? The problem is that Conservative political materials are cited which are inaccurate. Do you think I can edit and cite a link to Westbury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenith69uk ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi dear Admin. please check and review this user editions
all of his editions are vandalism like this or this or this or change or delete paragraphs, numbers or words in articles
also he delete all notifications in his talk page like this
thank you Modern Sciences ( talk) 02:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
In this revert, is it the case, or the hyphen, or both? What's the basis for the proper-name treatment of High Speed Train here? Dicklyon ( talk) 00:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
When you have two Class 43 power cars [locomotives] flanking up to nine Mark 3 coaches, that is a High Speed Train, and that is how British Rail referred to them in most documents (in the early days of the project, it was High Speed Diesel Train). The term "Inter-City 125" (capitalised and hyphenated thus) was a slogan thought up by BR's marketing team for use on the High Speed Train, and painted on the sides in the early years; it is not the name of the type of train. HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs) has carried out much research on the matter, having lived within cycling distance of Derby Public Library for some years. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)There was one glimmer of hope on the horizon, this being the advent of the High Speed Train project. Now that running of trains at speeds up to 100 mph was becoming commonplace and, with the increasing competition from the airlines, the case for a frequent high-speed train service became paramount.
Shall I or you address the "rfcid" bot issue with template:rfc top and template:rfc bottom to WP:VPT? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
|rfcid=
parameter is being added to templates that don't have any use for it (if that were all that was happening then it would be harmless), but that
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) is assuming that the five-character sequence "{{rfc" indicates the start of an open RfC discussion. That bot, like almost all other bots, is outside everybody's control except for its botop. In this case the botop is
Legoktm (
talk ·
contribs), upon whom we're dependent for a fix. There is nothing that VPT can do other than analyse the problem, which I have been doing for about a year now. I have explained the problem, at length, on various talk pages: most recently at
User talk:Legoktm#Legobot/Rfc template interaction question. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
00:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
closed rfc top}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Hi
Sorry that my edit [1] to your userpage didn't produce such neat output.
I did it because babelbox categorises you in the non-existent Category:User simple-2>. It was a redkink until I later created the category redirect, so it no longer shows up as a redlink ... but retaining babelbox for this means that you will be a categorised in a category which people cannot navigate to. That doesn't seem much use, but up to you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Now that I have created Category:User simple-2, the category no longer clutters up the redlinked category lists. But it's still wrong that the userpage is permanently categorised in a redirect. That doesn't impede cleanup, so I will leave it be ... but I am bemused by the contrast between RedRose64's determination to reinstate this error, and their very reproachful tone whenever any of my edits inadvertently cause an error. It would be nice to see that gap closing. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
{{#babel:en-N|de-1|fr-1|simple-2}}
in the manner advised by
its documentation. The #babel: system was designed to work in the same manner across all Wikipedias, with no local variation, since that would lead to confusion "why does this work at French Wikipedia but not at English?". If there is perceived to be incorrect categorisation as a result of using the documented syntax, then the categories should be fixed. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
08:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Redrose 64,
Thanks for making these modifications for me.
Actually, I'd just worked out that I had accidentally placed a full stop at the end of the heading and that that was what was causing me a few problems. I was just about to remove it when I noticed that, kindly, you had already done it.
Regards, Albert Isaacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Isaacs ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Quick question, does this crop of edits violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
You may be interested in commenting at the discussion on my talk page (or moving the discussion to a more central location). Optimist on the run ( talk) 11:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello red🌹 (how clever is that!) Can you take a look at the signature currently in use here? I was thinking especially that thing you do to it which shows how it appears to the partially-sighted. Since a load of it seems to be missing! Cheers — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 10:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello R. I am trying to fix the italics in the DAB title of various Dr Who classic series articles. I found that some display as Title (Doctor Who) and some as Title (Doctor Who). When I added the "Display title" template to The Chase it worked fine. But when I tried to do the same thing on The Reign of Terror and The Rescue it didn't. I am guessing that there is something technical that I am missing so I'm banking on your expertise to steer me in the right direction. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 02:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
{{DISPLAYTITLE}}
per article, so if there's one elsewhere (in this case, tucked away in the infobox adjacent to that error message), you need to suppress it. As noted in the second box at the top of {{
infobox book}}
, the fix is to add |italic title=no
to that infobox. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
12:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
{{DISPLAYTITLE}}
, there is the error message Warning: Display title "<i>The Invasion</i> (Doctor Who)" overrides earlier display title "<i>The Invasion</i> (<i>Doctor Who</i>)".. In
that section of the current version, edit the section (in proper editor, not with VE) and go straight for Show preview, you will see the message |Italic title=no
--
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Redrose64, I'm sorry to dump you with this but I fear it might be an old friend of yours. This user came to my attention because of an unusual "warning" message that they left for another editor. I wish I'd just ignored it now - it soon became clear that this was not some new innocent user who doesn't quite "get" it. Even just looking at the history of this particular thing (GWR logo in or out of Night Riviera article, threats of "reporting to the moderators", general rudeness etc) I realized that it was almost certainly the same person here and here. Sadly this looks, again on similar behaviours and the continuation of conversations or accusations across accounts, as if it is possibly the blocked user and sockpuppeteer User:Devonexpressbus who I see you have had previous and no doubt very rewarding engagements with. Whether you want to do something with this I leave entirely up to you - that's why they pay you the huge Administrators' Salary after all - but I want nothing more to do with this guy. In a way, I can see a benefit to just leaving him alone and letting him plug away in his own little plastic bubble. I just felt a bit caught out that I approached him as a kind of normal inexperienced editor when I could have done with a health warning sign that said "do not tangle with this well-established [noun of your choice] - it's not worth it". It's the usual two-rules debate, I suppose. Ho hum and thanks, DBaK ( talk) 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Redrose64 - I've been watching the article on Ferdowsi, and the back-and-forth between two editors, and one of them just made this edit. Can just anyone change the rating of an article like that? – Corinne ( talk) 03:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the template that was being used on the West Coast Main Line article has been deleted for some unknown reason and been replaced by the core route only one, despite a complete lack of consensus to do this on the discussion page. Surely this flies against all due processes of wikipedia. Can you use your admin powers to undelete it. Pending a proper discussion. Users can't just force their preferred views when they have no consensus. G-13114 ( talk) 19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
db-g7}}
by
Pldx1 (
talk ·
contribs) at 13:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC). Since Pldx1 was not the page creator, the G7 criterion was clearly not applicable; more so because Pldx1 was not even a contributor of any kind, their only edit to the page being to blank it and add that template. Have you asked RickinBaltimore why they felt that G7 was applicable here? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up, I declined the A7 because we can probably turn this into an article about the proposed line, moving it away from any business interests, or merging it with London and South Western Railway or whatever the most appropriate article is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Re:
this diff, and you asked where it says that they're deprecated:
Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes makes it clear that In August 2016,
an RfC established that the individual named coordinates-related parameters in infoboxes (latd or lat_d, etc.) should be deprecated in favor of |coordinates={{Coord}}
. Below, it states that The names of the deprecated parameters vary between templates but often include many of the following... Latitude and longitude are included in the bulleted list. In the
tracking section you may notice that, within the table, {{
Infobox UK disused station}}
is included. So, although just including the numbers would be immediately easier (and I agree with you, there), |coordinates={{Coord}}
is now the standard. Regards,
EP111 (
talk)
23:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello
Do you have an email address I could contact you on regarding the next Oxford meet up?
Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmnt ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Redrose64, thanks for fixing those odd link issues on Delta and the Bannermen. I'm using the visual editor and having it automatically build links for the article from sources. I'm glad you found and fixed those issues with the numbers being placed inside the ref name (4:) , because I didn't realize they were there. Do you think that behavior might be a bug with the visual editor? If you've seen those kinds of issues before, could you tell me what might be causing them? Either way, thanks again for fixing them. Curdigirl ( talk) 14:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
name=":0"
etc. might well originate with Visual Editor directly, or they might be added by somebody who has seen them elsewhere, because they think that it's the "proper" way to do it. I don't like VE, for one reason because it's so difficult to control what it does behind the scenes - things that are obvious if a proper text editor is used. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)You semi protected the Tyne and Wear Metro article back in 2013. I think it might be safe to unprotect it now, since the troll who caused the original problem is long gone. G-13114 ( talk) 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello R. When you have a moment would you please take a look at our old friend Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. There are two template redirects which I can't edit, one template sandbox and one article that need your expertise. Only a few weeks to go to new Dr Who episodes :-) Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be deleting entries that fully comply with Wikipedia:Rules_for_Fools and I'd argue that by submitting a humorous entry for speedy deleting you are actually disrupting Wikipedia by adding it to a serious list. Please stop your disruptive editing, calm down and get sense of humor. Then come back and discuss this before reverting again! Thank you. Mainline421 ( talk) 17:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah I didn't see that before. I'm making a new talk page for that template-- SeminoleNation ( talk) 23:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
|name=
parameter of the {{
navbox}}
template has only one purpose - to define the little "v-t-e" links at upper left. The purposes of these three links are to:
|name=South Florida metropolitan area
, which yields links as follows: .|name=Miami metropolitan area
, what you end up with is - i.e. three incorrect links. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)I'm annoyed by the comments you have put at the talk. I used the word vandalism not at the article but at the talk because the bloke brought a block from a fr wiki on the table which is an attempt to discredit my person. You included the link of my block on the fr wiki which looks like a personal attack, I take it like it. you did it many times. Stop this and erase these links leading to the fr wiki. what happens on another wiki stays there as it was not a vandalism in any sorts, hence mentioning it is inappropriate. Iennes ( talk) 14:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
What class locomotive was LMS 0-6-0 No. 1909, that was in service in 1932? Mjroots ( talk) 07:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Redrose. I can see you are busy and I'm very sorry to bother you with this, but you've helped me in the past with archiving and I wonder if I could please impose on you yet again? I've tried to archive Talk:French horn but it seems to have failed. I wondered if it could be the sort of date format problems I've seen before; also, there had been a previous, partially-completed, attempt to archive it. This had left behind a previous Archive 1 plus many duplicates not moved from the Talk page. In an effort to help with this - in case it was a possible cause of failure - I sorted out the Archive 1, and set the archiver to try for Archive 2. However, it still does not work, and I have reached, I fear, the limits of my competence (it never takes long). Could you possibly have a quick look and tell me what I did wrong? Please remember: bloke, fish, fishing-rod etc ... that's me, that is! I'd love to know what went on here ... Cheers DBaK ( talk) 21:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Redrose64, I think you made a mistake. My edits concerning those certain living people are true. Homer Simpson of Springfield ( talk) 18:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I am looking at the latest edition of this template ( Template:Swansea District Line), where the link to the branch line to the Morriston Branch is shown. There is the station of Pentrefelin Halt shown on the commencement of that branch line and if I click on that station, I am transferred to a Wikipedia page of that station name, but NOT the one in question but the station on the Tanat Valley Railway, which is very many miles away to the north. Is it possible that such a link be removed, as it is most confusing.
After, Pentrefelin Halt on the Morriston branch line, I have a query if there were any other stations/halts before the four stations of Moriston, Copper Pit Platform, Plas Marl Halt, Landore (Low Level).
Incidentally, my most grateful thanks for your recent aid on a query that I had originally sent to the talk page of Useddenim
Xenophon Philosopher ( talk) 03:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hiya ! Thanks for messaging me with this edit. I appreciate you've noted that the edits I made do not match the title of the article, however... The problem with the article is that the title >>itself<< is incorrect.
Whoever posted it initially was obviously unaware of the distinction between the stations in Woolwich: 1. Woolwich (Arsenal) overground station. This is the traditional type of station seen everywhere here in the UK, and links in to the national rail network. It is in the middle of the town. If any station in Wikipedia deserves to be called Woolwich station, it's the Woolwich overground station, the oldest of the four. However, everything else in this article except the title is about the newly (still under construction) "Crossrail" station, which will be part of and connected to the London Underground, or "tube".
2. Woolwich Dockyard. This is a separate station, approximately one half of a mile to the west of Woolwich and serves a mostly residential community. It is not practical to walk to it from the town, or desirable. It is on the same line as the central Woolwich overground station, and is another overground station.
3. Woolwich Arsenal DLR station. Also in the middle of the town, the is a separate "light" rail service to both Crossrail and the overground rail line. It also has its own station but is separate to both overground and Crossrail lines.
4. Finally, Woolwich Crossrail station. This station is on the north edge of the town's central area, on the site of the old "Royal Woolwich Arsenal". No-one refers to it as "Woolwich railway station", this is simply incorrect, as this is the name of the OVERGROUND station ! It IS known as both Woolwich Crossrail station, and Woolwich Elizabeth Line station (the new name for the line when it opens - Crossrail is the project name), in order to differentiate it from the other three stations in the area. It is also somewhat confusingly referred to as Woolwich Station, but only in the context of Crossrail literature. However it is NOT, EVER referred to as Woolwich RAILWAY, or Woolwich Railway Station, as a) The existing overground station is called this, and b) because Crossrail is not a railway - it is an integral part of the underground, which is an underground railway line, or "tube" line, which is how Londoners refer to it. This is an important distinction, as the tube/London underground does NOT connect into the national network, it only serves London and a few satellite commuter towns, just as Crossrail does.
Bottom line is, if you asked anyone local what/where Woolwich railway station is, they would correctly point you to the overground station. But the Crossrail station is not a railway station, and it's both incorrect and confusing for Wikipedia to describe it as such, especially with Woolwich having so many similarly named stations.
If you'd like to verify this for yourself (I know it's incredibly confusing for non-locals!), go to maps.google.com and search for "woolwich railway station" It will correctly identify the mainline overground station - you can see this is overground as the lines are visible above ground on both map and earth views. Woolwich DLR station can be seen 50m to the north. And Woolwich Crossrail station / Woolwich Elizabeth Line station (the one I'm complaining so vocally about!) is not visible yet as it's still under construction (I walk past it twice every day), but can be found just to the south east of the Dial Arch pub, another 100m to the north of the DLR station. For verification, you can see that there is a path on the map which is the giveaway of its eventual location - Crossrail Path.
Apologies for the length of this, but it's worth getting right, otherwise Wikipedia is wrong on something basic and verifiable to about 8 million Londoners. Look forward to your response... Many thanks, Jon Reade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonreade ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello R. A new set of articles has shown up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I think it is related to the protection added here but I could be wrong. I waited to bring this to you to see if the removal of the template would cause articles to drop out of the category but the number of articles has stayed the same. I hope that what is happening is easy for you to find. MarnetteD| Talk 17:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
R semi-protected}}
, {{
R fully protected}}
etc. - but none of those should be added if the redirect already has either {{
this is a redirect}}
or {{
redirect category shell}}
, since those both autodetect the prot level and act accordingly. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Hello again R. I just found all sorts of user pages and dashboards on the list. I did some digging and couldn't find any page(s) that had a new protection applied that would have caused this. I know I probably missed something easy. If you could track it down that would be much appreciated. MarnetteD| Talk 23:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
<noinclude>
was actually removed. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
10:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
<noinclude>
tag from
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection was the direct cause of that: once I had restored the top of that page to its previous state, the category emptied apart from one or two pages that were in the category for a more suitable reason.Actually, if you look at the two templates involved, I have not "bypassed" a redirect, but replaced a template deprecated by community consensus with the community-approved replacement. This is part of a project to replace all instances of this template in Wikipedia. I would therefore respectfully request that you undo your reversion on this redirect. Of course, it will eventually be corrected back to the new template by one of the several bots that the community is now working on to undertake this task, but it is better to deal with this up front, and avoid any possible confusion in the future. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought someone should alert you that an editor has now twice changed your comments at the Admin Noticeboard page: [4] -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:CIR. Some of their past posts on "hacking" are even more bizarre. -- NeilN talk to me 19:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
When you have a chance, can you sync Template: WikiProject Women's sport/sandbox with the live one? Thank you. Hmlarson ( talk) 01:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Still being very unsure of how to make contact with Afterbrunel (who has produced numerous of his special style of coloured route maps in articles), I humbly beg your assistance in asking you to contact him on my behalf to say that on the coloured route map in the main Wikipedia article on this railway that he produced, it shows a mistake. Martell Bridge Halt was prior to, not after, Beulah Halt. The main body of the Wikipedia article confirms what I have said above.
Xenophon Philosopher ( talk) 06:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
So that's where the missing A went ... good catch, thanks! DBaK ( talk) 15:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, can you please explain me how Talk:Menstrual disc#RFC on proposal to delete redirect to menstrual cup turns up at Category:Wikipedia proposals at RFC listing.I can't find any apparent reason for the same. Winged Blades Godric 04:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
|rfcid=
parameter. When there is no |rfcid=
, it's quite safe to alter the RfC category parameters; but once Legobot has set the |rfcid=
then removing an RfC category parameter (including altering it to something else) should only be done if the |rfcid=
is also removed.
This edit should fix it on the next bot run (10:01 UTC).|rfcid=
(which need not be removed). --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
09:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Pay closer attention please. After three requests, whatshisname indeed reapplied his changes (a subset of them, anyway, so far) in a number of smaller edits. Since then DrKay made two obvious, uncontroversial fixes, and I've made one obvious, uncontroversial fix. There's no problem, and no justification for protection. E Eng 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
If you - or anybody else - do want to make changes to such a highly-visible page (whether it is protected or not), they should really be discussedis flat-out wrong -- that proviso applies to substantive changes. There are now several editors at the talk page trying to tell you that you've made a mistake. Please reverse yourself. E Eng 17:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There have been times when you have been helpful, and for that I thank you. But what the two threads you link demonstrate is... um... exactly the behavior of yours that I described near the end of the second of those two threads:
In sum you have an annoying habit of trying to explain why people shouldn't want to do what they want to do, or should get along with current painful and inadequate facilities, instead of addressing the request being made.
That tendency, which that quote describes in the context of technical discussions, seems to be a special form of a more general problem illustrated in the current context: you seem incapable of revising your initial construction of a situation, no matter how much contrary evidence is presented.
Your bizarre statement that you might leave a page protected just because you don't like my attitude epitomizes the high-handedness and poor judgment you display in general. You're exactly the kind of admin the project doesn't need. E Eng 23:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Redrose: there are now by my count five editors on the MOS talk page arguing against continued protection (EEng, Anomalocaris, BushelCandle, Sb2001, and Primergrey) and no arguments there or here in favor of continued protection. (I'm not counting your prickly interaction with EEng as an actual reason for continued protection). So to me that looks like a consensus. Can you unprotect, please? Or at least explicitly stand down and let someone else unprotect (I'd be happy to do it myself, if for some reason you think it would protect your honor to not do it yourself). — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Redrose64,
I hope that you can understand my intentions to correct the article on the Bulleid Light Pacifics. I lived for twelve years in Eastleigh and knew a couple of engineers from the railway. My father told me clearly the correct term for the Bulleid Pacifics, both Light Pacifics and the Merchant Navys was either Unmodified or Modified. This is born true by the original Bulleid technical drawings. For they too refer to the locomotives as being either Unmodified or Modified. I have access to digital images of the BPLA technical drawings. These are being used to help restore these locomotives and for a time I was involved in restoring 35011. I left for personal reasons. There is no such word as "Unrebuilt". How on Earth can something be unrebuilt! One may say unmodified meaning 'non, or not modified', or as-built.. but you can't undo something that has not happened. It does not make any sense at all, it is grammatically quite wrong. One of the engineers I knew actually met Oliver Bulleid and I also met Barry Curl, the son of Reginald L. Curl who was an assistant to O.V.S Bulleid. I started off the project to retro engineer 35011 General Steam Navigation back into air-smoothed casing. Sadly even books have been published with incorrect information, Richard Derry may not be 100% accurate all the time and the more often these mistakes have been published, the more often people assume the information to constitute a fact - a misnomer. I have been involved in steam preservation, attended a number of the BPLA meetings and deeply researched the Bulleid Pacifics and I can assure you, the original and correct term for these locomotives is Unmodified or Modified. The uneducated may not see any difference but the locomotives were regarded originally as modified, not actually rebuilt. Even Ron Jarvis described the locomotives as about 85% Bulleid. Another problem we now face is the critical views towards the original locomotives. They were a little more involved and a little higher maintenance but were certainly nothing like as bad as they were sometimes portrayed to be. Bearing in mind the time when these locomotives were built. Why would anybody go to so much trouble to try to make this point if I wasn't sincere? Furthermore it is ironic that such information regarding other aspects of the locomotives is documented when a correct term I have tried to restore has been considered unacceptable. I have seen the original navigators helm that was going to be used before the Southern roundel with my naked eyes. I know what is on the original locomotive drawings - I managed to get all the original Merchant Navy drawings from Barry Curl before his death, that were missing from the BPLA archives, about eighty four in total. I swear solemnly the correct term for the Bulleid Pacifics is either Unmodified or Modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPEsprit ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me regarding article: SR_West_Country_and_Battle_of_Britain_classes
I have uploaded a selection of images showing original technical diagrams created by BR using my Pinterest account. These include the classifications Modified/Unmodified used for the locomotives at the time. I hope these will be useful in verifying what we have discussed and could be used on the wikipedia article. I have more images which I have not uploaded as of yet but I would be happy to do so if it is of assistance. I'm sorry I am not very well versed with Wikipedia but I am getting used to the necessary procedures in order to edit information.
The link to my Pinterest board for these tech drawings is: https://uk.pinterest.com/tpesprit/bulleid-pacific-technical-drawings/
Many thanks for your help and best wishes.
TPEsprit ( talk) 19:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello R. When you have a moment would you please check the PP at the Palpatine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. On the 6th it looks like PC was altered and regular protection was applied as well. I'm not sure which template is the correct one to use when this occurs but the current one is causing it to show up in the category. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 02:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
pp-pc1}}
should have been removed as well;
MusikBot (
talk ·
contribs) did this in
this edit. The only thing still outstanding is that there is no padlock reflecting the current one-year semi-protection and this may be rectified by adding {{
pp-semi|small=yes}}
--
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
08:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. User:RonBot showed up in the cat today. It might have something to do with this edit but I might be wrong. MarnetteD| Talk 23:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
In the body of the article, in the section referring to the list of stations, Copley Hill is shown printed in red. It seems that Wikipedia have no references to that station in the sections that a thorough search would normally reveal something. I ask you, as you have made a 2017 edit this year on the line if you would investigate this matter.
Also, whilst all other closed stations are shown on the line diagram in the article, Copley Hill is not positionally shown anywhere.
Xenophon Philosopher ( talk) 15:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Redrose64 - I wonder if you can help this editor at Wikipedia:Help desk#Archives for Discussion-Pages. The requester deleted the request for help because she did not receive a reply, so I reverted and put it back onto the page. Even if no one is ultimately able to help her, don't you think it would be nice if she received a reply? – Corinne ( talk) 17:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I am looking for a user to expand the category articles of List_of_Emirati_women_artists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.159.133 ( talk) 19:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I was basing it on this section: Hull_Paragon_Interchange#Platforms
Does the total only account for those which are numbered for passenger use? There's actually 11 if you include those outside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dx1111 ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
"The G.T. Andrews designed Paragon Station" Does this make grammatical sense to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dx1111 ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
|platforms=
parameter is for the number of platforms in regular use for passenger services. Platform 1 is not in regular use. As for "The G.T. Andrews designed Paragon Station", I might put in a hyphen, as in "The G.T. Andrews-designed Paragon Station", but otherwise it's correct. Also, please
sign your posts. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)On second read through it reads correctly and my edit was incorrect. Dx1111 ( talk) 07:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that fix on Infobox London Station. I seem to remember that there used to be a tool for renumbering the labels in templates, but I couldn't find it and didn't have the time earlier to do it manually, so just did the temporary kludge. I came back this evening to do it properly and you've save me the effort. I'm pretty sure that there were gaps in the numbering as well in the past.-- DavidCane ( talk) 21:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Despite massive opposition at the first RM, Dicklyon sneaked in a second RM just days later, and we've now go a dashed, non-capitalised title for the Redhill to Tonbridge Line article. There is also another mass-RM request running (notice posted at WT:UKT). This is getting well beyond WP:DISRUPTIVE now. Mjroots ( talk) 16:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, in April 2015, you removed my edit on Ruth Davidson's page regarding her breaking her back during Officer Training. I was her training officer at the time and thus know very well that she received her injury at the Army officer Selection Board at Westbury not at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst at Camberley. The issue is that I cannot provide a citation for this as it would be inappropriate and not possible to provide her medical documentation. I could however provide a link to AOSB at Westbury? The problem is that Conservative political materials are cited which are inaccurate. Do you think I can edit and cite a link to Westbury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenith69uk ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi dear Admin. please check and review this user editions
all of his editions are vandalism like this or this or this or change or delete paragraphs, numbers or words in articles
also he delete all notifications in his talk page like this
thank you Modern Sciences ( talk) 02:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
In this revert, is it the case, or the hyphen, or both? What's the basis for the proper-name treatment of High Speed Train here? Dicklyon ( talk) 00:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
When you have two Class 43 power cars [locomotives] flanking up to nine Mark 3 coaches, that is a High Speed Train, and that is how British Rail referred to them in most documents (in the early days of the project, it was High Speed Diesel Train). The term "Inter-City 125" (capitalised and hyphenated thus) was a slogan thought up by BR's marketing team for use on the High Speed Train, and painted on the sides in the early years; it is not the name of the type of train. HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs) has carried out much research on the matter, having lived within cycling distance of Derby Public Library for some years. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)There was one glimmer of hope on the horizon, this being the advent of the High Speed Train project. Now that running of trains at speeds up to 100 mph was becoming commonplace and, with the increasing competition from the airlines, the case for a frequent high-speed train service became paramount.
Shall I or you address the "rfcid" bot issue with template:rfc top and template:rfc bottom to WP:VPT? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
|rfcid=
parameter is being added to templates that don't have any use for it (if that were all that was happening then it would be harmless), but that
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) is assuming that the five-character sequence "{{rfc" indicates the start of an open RfC discussion. That bot, like almost all other bots, is outside everybody's control except for its botop. In this case the botop is
Legoktm (
talk ·
contribs), upon whom we're dependent for a fix. There is nothing that VPT can do other than analyse the problem, which I have been doing for about a year now. I have explained the problem, at length, on various talk pages: most recently at
User talk:Legoktm#Legobot/Rfc template interaction question. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
00:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
closed rfc top}}
. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Hi
Sorry that my edit [1] to your userpage didn't produce such neat output.
I did it because babelbox categorises you in the non-existent Category:User simple-2>. It was a redkink until I later created the category redirect, so it no longer shows up as a redlink ... but retaining babelbox for this means that you will be a categorised in a category which people cannot navigate to. That doesn't seem much use, but up to you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Now that I have created Category:User simple-2, the category no longer clutters up the redlinked category lists. But it's still wrong that the userpage is permanently categorised in a redirect. That doesn't impede cleanup, so I will leave it be ... but I am bemused by the contrast between RedRose64's determination to reinstate this error, and their very reproachful tone whenever any of my edits inadvertently cause an error. It would be nice to see that gap closing. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
{{#babel:en-N|de-1|fr-1|simple-2}}
in the manner advised by
its documentation. The #babel: system was designed to work in the same manner across all Wikipedias, with no local variation, since that would lead to confusion "why does this work at French Wikipedia but not at English?". If there is perceived to be incorrect categorisation as a result of using the documented syntax, then the categories should be fixed. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
08:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Redrose 64,
Thanks for making these modifications for me.
Actually, I'd just worked out that I had accidentally placed a full stop at the end of the heading and that that was what was causing me a few problems. I was just about to remove it when I noticed that, kindly, you had already done it.
Regards, Albert Isaacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Isaacs ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Quick question, does this crop of edits violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
You may be interested in commenting at the discussion on my talk page (or moving the discussion to a more central location). Optimist on the run ( talk) 11:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello red🌹 (how clever is that!) Can you take a look at the signature currently in use here? I was thinking especially that thing you do to it which shows how it appears to the partially-sighted. Since a load of it seems to be missing! Cheers — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 10:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello R. I am trying to fix the italics in the DAB title of various Dr Who classic series articles. I found that some display as Title (Doctor Who) and some as Title (Doctor Who). When I added the "Display title" template to The Chase it worked fine. But when I tried to do the same thing on The Reign of Terror and The Rescue it didn't. I am guessing that there is something technical that I am missing so I'm banking on your expertise to steer me in the right direction. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 02:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
{{DISPLAYTITLE}}
per article, so if there's one elsewhere (in this case, tucked away in the infobox adjacent to that error message), you need to suppress it. As noted in the second box at the top of {{
infobox book}}
, the fix is to add |italic title=no
to that infobox. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
12:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
{{DISPLAYTITLE}}
, there is the error message Warning: Display title "<i>The Invasion</i> (Doctor Who)" overrides earlier display title "<i>The Invasion</i> (<i>Doctor Who</i>)".. In
that section of the current version, edit the section (in proper editor, not with VE) and go straight for Show preview, you will see the message |Italic title=no
--
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Dear Redrose64, I'm sorry to dump you with this but I fear it might be an old friend of yours. This user came to my attention because of an unusual "warning" message that they left for another editor. I wish I'd just ignored it now - it soon became clear that this was not some new innocent user who doesn't quite "get" it. Even just looking at the history of this particular thing (GWR logo in or out of Night Riviera article, threats of "reporting to the moderators", general rudeness etc) I realized that it was almost certainly the same person here and here. Sadly this looks, again on similar behaviours and the continuation of conversations or accusations across accounts, as if it is possibly the blocked user and sockpuppeteer User:Devonexpressbus who I see you have had previous and no doubt very rewarding engagements with. Whether you want to do something with this I leave entirely up to you - that's why they pay you the huge Administrators' Salary after all - but I want nothing more to do with this guy. In a way, I can see a benefit to just leaving him alone and letting him plug away in his own little plastic bubble. I just felt a bit caught out that I approached him as a kind of normal inexperienced editor when I could have done with a health warning sign that said "do not tangle with this well-established [noun of your choice] - it's not worth it". It's the usual two-rules debate, I suppose. Ho hum and thanks, DBaK ( talk) 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Redrose64 - I've been watching the article on Ferdowsi, and the back-and-forth between two editors, and one of them just made this edit. Can just anyone change the rating of an article like that? – Corinne ( talk) 03:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the template that was being used on the West Coast Main Line article has been deleted for some unknown reason and been replaced by the core route only one, despite a complete lack of consensus to do this on the discussion page. Surely this flies against all due processes of wikipedia. Can you use your admin powers to undelete it. Pending a proper discussion. Users can't just force their preferred views when they have no consensus. G-13114 ( talk) 19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
db-g7}}
by
Pldx1 (
talk ·
contribs) at 13:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC). Since Pldx1 was not the page creator, the G7 criterion was clearly not applicable; more so because Pldx1 was not even a contributor of any kind, their only edit to the page being to blank it and add that template. Have you asked RickinBaltimore why they felt that G7 was applicable here? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up, I declined the A7 because we can probably turn this into an article about the proposed line, moving it away from any business interests, or merging it with London and South Western Railway or whatever the most appropriate article is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Re:
this diff, and you asked where it says that they're deprecated:
Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes makes it clear that In August 2016,
an RfC established that the individual named coordinates-related parameters in infoboxes (latd or lat_d, etc.) should be deprecated in favor of |coordinates={{Coord}}
. Below, it states that The names of the deprecated parameters vary between templates but often include many of the following... Latitude and longitude are included in the bulleted list. In the
tracking section you may notice that, within the table, {{
Infobox UK disused station}}
is included. So, although just including the numbers would be immediately easier (and I agree with you, there), |coordinates={{Coord}}
is now the standard. Regards,
EP111 (
talk)
23:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello
Do you have an email address I could contact you on regarding the next Oxford meet up?
Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmnt ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Redrose64, thanks for fixing those odd link issues on Delta and the Bannermen. I'm using the visual editor and having it automatically build links for the article from sources. I'm glad you found and fixed those issues with the numbers being placed inside the ref name (4:) , because I didn't realize they were there. Do you think that behavior might be a bug with the visual editor? If you've seen those kinds of issues before, could you tell me what might be causing them? Either way, thanks again for fixing them. Curdigirl ( talk) 14:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
name=":0"
etc. might well originate with Visual Editor directly, or they might be added by somebody who has seen them elsewhere, because they think that it's the "proper" way to do it. I don't like VE, for one reason because it's so difficult to control what it does behind the scenes - things that are obvious if a proper text editor is used. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)You semi protected the Tyne and Wear Metro article back in 2013. I think it might be safe to unprotect it now, since the troll who caused the original problem is long gone. G-13114 ( talk) 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello R. When you have a moment would you please take a look at our old friend Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. There are two template redirects which I can't edit, one template sandbox and one article that need your expertise. Only a few weeks to go to new Dr Who episodes :-) Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be deleting entries that fully comply with Wikipedia:Rules_for_Fools and I'd argue that by submitting a humorous entry for speedy deleting you are actually disrupting Wikipedia by adding it to a serious list. Please stop your disruptive editing, calm down and get sense of humor. Then come back and discuss this before reverting again! Thank you. Mainline421 ( talk) 17:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah I didn't see that before. I'm making a new talk page for that template-- SeminoleNation ( talk) 23:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
|name=
parameter of the {{
navbox}}
template has only one purpose - to define the little "v-t-e" links at upper left. The purposes of these three links are to:
|name=South Florida metropolitan area
, which yields links as follows: .|name=Miami metropolitan area
, what you end up with is - i.e. three incorrect links. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)I'm annoyed by the comments you have put at the talk. I used the word vandalism not at the article but at the talk because the bloke brought a block from a fr wiki on the table which is an attempt to discredit my person. You included the link of my block on the fr wiki which looks like a personal attack, I take it like it. you did it many times. Stop this and erase these links leading to the fr wiki. what happens on another wiki stays there as it was not a vandalism in any sorts, hence mentioning it is inappropriate. Iennes ( talk) 14:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
What class locomotive was LMS 0-6-0 No. 1909, that was in service in 1932? Mjroots ( talk) 07:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Redrose. I can see you are busy and I'm very sorry to bother you with this, but you've helped me in the past with archiving and I wonder if I could please impose on you yet again? I've tried to archive Talk:French horn but it seems to have failed. I wondered if it could be the sort of date format problems I've seen before; also, there had been a previous, partially-completed, attempt to archive it. This had left behind a previous Archive 1 plus many duplicates not moved from the Talk page. In an effort to help with this - in case it was a possible cause of failure - I sorted out the Archive 1, and set the archiver to try for Archive 2. However, it still does not work, and I have reached, I fear, the limits of my competence (it never takes long). Could you possibly have a quick look and tell me what I did wrong? Please remember: bloke, fish, fishing-rod etc ... that's me, that is! I'd love to know what went on here ... Cheers DBaK ( talk) 21:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Redrose64, I think you made a mistake. My edits concerning those certain living people are true. Homer Simpson of Springfield ( talk) 18:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I am looking at the latest edition of this template ( Template:Swansea District Line), where the link to the branch line to the Morriston Branch is shown. There is the station of Pentrefelin Halt shown on the commencement of that branch line and if I click on that station, I am transferred to a Wikipedia page of that station name, but NOT the one in question but the station on the Tanat Valley Railway, which is very many miles away to the north. Is it possible that such a link be removed, as it is most confusing.
After, Pentrefelin Halt on the Morriston branch line, I have a query if there were any other stations/halts before the four stations of Moriston, Copper Pit Platform, Plas Marl Halt, Landore (Low Level).
Incidentally, my most grateful thanks for your recent aid on a query that I had originally sent to the talk page of Useddenim
Xenophon Philosopher ( talk) 03:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hiya ! Thanks for messaging me with this edit. I appreciate you've noted that the edits I made do not match the title of the article, however... The problem with the article is that the title >>itself<< is incorrect.
Whoever posted it initially was obviously unaware of the distinction between the stations in Woolwich: 1. Woolwich (Arsenal) overground station. This is the traditional type of station seen everywhere here in the UK, and links in to the national rail network. It is in the middle of the town. If any station in Wikipedia deserves to be called Woolwich station, it's the Woolwich overground station, the oldest of the four. However, everything else in this article except the title is about the newly (still under construction) "Crossrail" station, which will be part of and connected to the London Underground, or "tube".
2. Woolwich Dockyard. This is a separate station, approximately one half of a mile to the west of Woolwich and serves a mostly residential community. It is not practical to walk to it from the town, or desirable. It is on the same line as the central Woolwich overground station, and is another overground station.
3. Woolwich Arsenal DLR station. Also in the middle of the town, the is a separate "light" rail service to both Crossrail and the overground rail line. It also has its own station but is separate to both overground and Crossrail lines.
4. Finally, Woolwich Crossrail station. This station is on the north edge of the town's central area, on the site of the old "Royal Woolwich Arsenal". No-one refers to it as "Woolwich railway station", this is simply incorrect, as this is the name of the OVERGROUND station ! It IS known as both Woolwich Crossrail station, and Woolwich Elizabeth Line station (the new name for the line when it opens - Crossrail is the project name), in order to differentiate it from the other three stations in the area. It is also somewhat confusingly referred to as Woolwich Station, but only in the context of Crossrail literature. However it is NOT, EVER referred to as Woolwich RAILWAY, or Woolwich Railway Station, as a) The existing overground station is called this, and b) because Crossrail is not a railway - it is an integral part of the underground, which is an underground railway line, or "tube" line, which is how Londoners refer to it. This is an important distinction, as the tube/London underground does NOT connect into the national network, it only serves London and a few satellite commuter towns, just as Crossrail does.
Bottom line is, if you asked anyone local what/where Woolwich railway station is, they would correctly point you to the overground station. But the Crossrail station is not a railway station, and it's both incorrect and confusing for Wikipedia to describe it as such, especially with Woolwich having so many similarly named stations.
If you'd like to verify this for yourself (I know it's incredibly confusing for non-locals!), go to maps.google.com and search for "woolwich railway station" It will correctly identify the mainline overground station - you can see this is overground as the lines are visible above ground on both map and earth views. Woolwich DLR station can be seen 50m to the north. And Woolwich Crossrail station / Woolwich Elizabeth Line station (the one I'm complaining so vocally about!) is not visible yet as it's still under construction (I walk past it twice every day), but can be found just to the south east of the Dial Arch pub, another 100m to the north of the DLR station. For verification, you can see that there is a path on the map which is the giveaway of its eventual location - Crossrail Path.
Apologies for the length of this, but it's worth getting right, otherwise Wikipedia is wrong on something basic and verifiable to about 8 million Londoners. Look forward to your response... Many thanks, Jon Reade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonreade ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello R. A new set of articles has shown up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I think it is related to the protection added here but I could be wrong. I waited to bring this to you to see if the removal of the template would cause articles to drop out of the category but the number of articles has stayed the same. I hope that what is happening is easy for you to find. MarnetteD| Talk 17:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
R semi-protected}}
, {{
R fully protected}}
etc. - but none of those should be added if the redirect already has either {{
this is a redirect}}
or {{
redirect category shell}}
, since those both autodetect the prot level and act accordingly. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Hello again R. I just found all sorts of user pages and dashboards on the list. I did some digging and couldn't find any page(s) that had a new protection applied that would have caused this. I know I probably missed something easy. If you could track it down that would be much appreciated. MarnetteD| Talk 23:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
<noinclude>
was actually removed. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
10:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
<noinclude>
tag from
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection was the direct cause of that: once I had restored the top of that page to its previous state, the category emptied apart from one or two pages that were in the category for a more suitable reason.Actually, if you look at the two templates involved, I have not "bypassed" a redirect, but replaced a template deprecated by community consensus with the community-approved replacement. This is part of a project to replace all instances of this template in Wikipedia. I would therefore respectfully request that you undo your reversion on this redirect. Of course, it will eventually be corrected back to the new template by one of the several bots that the community is now working on to undertake this task, but it is better to deal with this up front, and avoid any possible confusion in the future. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I thought someone should alert you that an editor has now twice changed your comments at the Admin Noticeboard page: [4] -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:CIR. Some of their past posts on "hacking" are even more bizarre. -- NeilN talk to me 19:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
When you have a chance, can you sync Template: WikiProject Women's sport/sandbox with the live one? Thank you. Hmlarson ( talk) 01:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Still being very unsure of how to make contact with Afterbrunel (who has produced numerous of his special style of coloured route maps in articles), I humbly beg your assistance in asking you to contact him on my behalf to say that on the coloured route map in the main Wikipedia article on this railway that he produced, it shows a mistake. Martell Bridge Halt was prior to, not after, Beulah Halt. The main body of the Wikipedia article confirms what I have said above.
Xenophon Philosopher ( talk) 06:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
So that's where the missing A went ... good catch, thanks! DBaK ( talk) 15:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, can you please explain me how Talk:Menstrual disc#RFC on proposal to delete redirect to menstrual cup turns up at Category:Wikipedia proposals at RFC listing.I can't find any apparent reason for the same. Winged Blades Godric 04:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
|rfcid=
parameter. When there is no |rfcid=
, it's quite safe to alter the RfC category parameters; but once Legobot has set the |rfcid=
then removing an RfC category parameter (including altering it to something else) should only be done if the |rfcid=
is also removed.
This edit should fix it on the next bot run (10:01 UTC).|rfcid=
(which need not be removed). --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
09:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Pay closer attention please. After three requests, whatshisname indeed reapplied his changes (a subset of them, anyway, so far) in a number of smaller edits. Since then DrKay made two obvious, uncontroversial fixes, and I've made one obvious, uncontroversial fix. There's no problem, and no justification for protection. E Eng 23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
If you - or anybody else - do want to make changes to such a highly-visible page (whether it is protected or not), they should really be discussedis flat-out wrong -- that proviso applies to substantive changes. There are now several editors at the talk page trying to tell you that you've made a mistake. Please reverse yourself. E Eng 17:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There have been times when you have been helpful, and for that I thank you. But what the two threads you link demonstrate is... um... exactly the behavior of yours that I described near the end of the second of those two threads:
In sum you have an annoying habit of trying to explain why people shouldn't want to do what they want to do, or should get along with current painful and inadequate facilities, instead of addressing the request being made.
That tendency, which that quote describes in the context of technical discussions, seems to be a special form of a more general problem illustrated in the current context: you seem incapable of revising your initial construction of a situation, no matter how much contrary evidence is presented.
Your bizarre statement that you might leave a page protected just because you don't like my attitude epitomizes the high-handedness and poor judgment you display in general. You're exactly the kind of admin the project doesn't need. E Eng 23:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Redrose: there are now by my count five editors on the MOS talk page arguing against continued protection (EEng, Anomalocaris, BushelCandle, Sb2001, and Primergrey) and no arguments there or here in favor of continued protection. (I'm not counting your prickly interaction with EEng as an actual reason for continued protection). So to me that looks like a consensus. Can you unprotect, please? Or at least explicitly stand down and let someone else unprotect (I'd be happy to do it myself, if for some reason you think it would protect your honor to not do it yourself). — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Dear Redrose64,
I hope that you can understand my intentions to correct the article on the Bulleid Light Pacifics. I lived for twelve years in Eastleigh and knew a couple of engineers from the railway. My father told me clearly the correct term for the Bulleid Pacifics, both Light Pacifics and the Merchant Navys was either Unmodified or Modified. This is born true by the original Bulleid technical drawings. For they too refer to the locomotives as being either Unmodified or Modified. I have access to digital images of the BPLA technical drawings. These are being used to help restore these locomotives and for a time I was involved in restoring 35011. I left for personal reasons. There is no such word as "Unrebuilt". How on Earth can something be unrebuilt! One may say unmodified meaning 'non, or not modified', or as-built.. but you can't undo something that has not happened. It does not make any sense at all, it is grammatically quite wrong. One of the engineers I knew actually met Oliver Bulleid and I also met Barry Curl, the son of Reginald L. Curl who was an assistant to O.V.S Bulleid. I started off the project to retro engineer 35011 General Steam Navigation back into air-smoothed casing. Sadly even books have been published with incorrect information, Richard Derry may not be 100% accurate all the time and the more often these mistakes have been published, the more often people assume the information to constitute a fact - a misnomer. I have been involved in steam preservation, attended a number of the BPLA meetings and deeply researched the Bulleid Pacifics and I can assure you, the original and correct term for these locomotives is Unmodified or Modified. The uneducated may not see any difference but the locomotives were regarded originally as modified, not actually rebuilt. Even Ron Jarvis described the locomotives as about 85% Bulleid. Another problem we now face is the critical views towards the original locomotives. They were a little more involved and a little higher maintenance but were certainly nothing like as bad as they were sometimes portrayed to be. Bearing in mind the time when these locomotives were built. Why would anybody go to so much trouble to try to make this point if I wasn't sincere? Furthermore it is ironic that such information regarding other aspects of the locomotives is documented when a correct term I have tried to restore has been considered unacceptable. I have seen the original navigators helm that was going to be used before the Southern roundel with my naked eyes. I know what is on the original locomotive drawings - I managed to get all the original Merchant Navy drawings from Barry Curl before his death, that were missing from the BPLA archives, about eighty four in total. I swear solemnly the correct term for the Bulleid Pacifics is either Unmodified or Modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPEsprit ( talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me regarding article: SR_West_Country_and_Battle_of_Britain_classes
I have uploaded a selection of images showing original technical diagrams created by BR using my Pinterest account. These include the classifications Modified/Unmodified used for the locomotives at the time. I hope these will be useful in verifying what we have discussed and could be used on the wikipedia article. I have more images which I have not uploaded as of yet but I would be happy to do so if it is of assistance. I'm sorry I am not very well versed with Wikipedia but I am getting used to the necessary procedures in order to edit information.
The link to my Pinterest board for these tech drawings is: https://uk.pinterest.com/tpesprit/bulleid-pacific-technical-drawings/
Many thanks for your help and best wishes.
TPEsprit ( talk) 19:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello R. When you have a moment would you please check the PP at the Palpatine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. On the 6th it looks like PC was altered and regular protection was applied as well. I'm not sure which template is the correct one to use when this occurs but the current one is causing it to show up in the category. Cheers. MarnetteD| Talk 02:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
{{
pp-pc1}}
should have been removed as well;
MusikBot (
talk ·
contribs) did this in
this edit. The only thing still outstanding is that there is no padlock reflecting the current one-year semi-protection and this may be rectified by adding {{
pp-semi|small=yes}}
--
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
08:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. User:RonBot showed up in the cat today. It might have something to do with this edit but I might be wrong. MarnetteD| Talk 23:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
In the body of the article, in the section referring to the list of stations, Copley Hill is shown printed in red. It seems that Wikipedia have no references to that station in the sections that a thorough search would normally reveal something. I ask you, as you have made a 2017 edit this year on the line if you would investigate this matter.
Also, whilst all other closed stations are shown on the line diagram in the article, Copley Hill is not positionally shown anywhere.
Xenophon Philosopher ( talk) 15:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Redrose64 - I wonder if you can help this editor at Wikipedia:Help desk#Archives for Discussion-Pages. The requester deleted the request for help because she did not receive a reply, so I reverted and put it back onto the page. Even if no one is ultimately able to help her, don't you think it would be nice if she received a reply? – Corinne ( talk) 17:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I am looking for a user to expand the category articles of List_of_Emirati_women_artists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.159.133 ( talk) 19:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I was basing it on this section: Hull_Paragon_Interchange#Platforms
Does the total only account for those which are numbered for passenger use? There's actually 11 if you include those outside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dx1111 ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
"The G.T. Andrews designed Paragon Station" Does this make grammatical sense to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dx1111 ( talk • contribs) 09:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
|platforms=
parameter is for the number of platforms in regular use for passenger services. Platform 1 is not in regular use. As for "The G.T. Andrews designed Paragon Station", I might put in a hyphen, as in "The G.T. Andrews-designed Paragon Station", but otherwise it's correct. Also, please
sign your posts. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
20:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)On second read through it reads correctly and my edit was incorrect. Dx1111 ( talk) 07:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that fix on Infobox London Station. I seem to remember that there used to be a tool for renumbering the labels in templates, but I couldn't find it and didn't have the time earlier to do it manually, so just did the temporary kludge. I came back this evening to do it properly and you've save me the effort. I'm pretty sure that there were gaps in the numbering as well in the past.-- DavidCane ( talk) 21:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)