|
Redrose64 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I would like a way to modify a time-date stamp such that it's still recognizable by humans but not by the archive bot. Very occasionally, there is a need to time-stamp something without extending the retention of a discussion that is approaching auto-archival. Can you suggest the best way to do this? ― Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Joe_Flacco#Etymology_for_"Stint" I don't get how that's a problem if I'm not using it to request comments at the moment. I imagine it's just a misunderstanding. ProofCreature ( talk) 15:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Redrose64, I saw your comment on David Lammy talk page RFC. Should I restart a new RFC and use that question?
Are the list of references not important to answer the question, I believed it was because this is a contentious issue and the references reveal a potential preference of David Lammy in the article. Can you briefly explain why they are not?
Also one user has dropped their objection, changing from a no to neutral, what advice do you have if the 3rd user doesn't engage?
Trying to learn, thanks. Erzan ( talk) 12:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag is directly followed by a
brief and neutral statement, optional signature, and mandatory timestamp. A statement containing nineteen inline external links is no way brief. You might like to read up on
WP:WRFC but that's not binding. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 00:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
At the moment it looks like just the two of us. What do you want to do? ©Geni ( talk) 19:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page South London line, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 19:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Please can you help me as to how to find a line number in an article. So far I have found no method. The difficult situation arises in differences between revisions when there is no context to search on and there is repetitive material in a table eg in [1]. How can I find the line 690 in the article? Best wishes. SovalValtos ( talk) 17:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the tipoff where I could find a couple more flavours. ©Geni ( talk) 16:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you fixed something at Talk:Fani Willis#RFC: alleged misuse of funds. Would you be willing to close the discussion? It seems to have run out of steam, and there also seems to be a consensus. Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
You fully protected this redirect for vandalism back in 2007, and I highly doubt that it is still needed. The article it redirects to is only semi-protected. Would you mind removing or downgrading the protection? QuicoleJR ( talk) 14:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Just sending this to be polite, but do you mind if I nick your constants template? Sneezless ( talk) ( contribs) 21:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I'll be in London in a couple of months as part of a European trip with my mother ... hopefully we'll see you at the Wikipedia meetup then! Today we've started the mammoth task of printing out tickets and so forth for the trip (mobile phones aren't the best for either of us, for different reasons), so that reminded me to let you know. Graham87 ( talk) 11:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I see you reverted my edit on WP:CR where I archived a load of discussions. I did this because I saw some discussions that have been marked as done but not archived for 2 weeks now, and the fact that other editors have done the same thing - although now I see you also reverted their edits. I definitely think some form of notice regarding the manual archiving, like the note at WP:ANI, would be a good idea. What do you think? JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
done}}
and similar templates. A third is that it selects threads to archive based not on timestamps but on activity as read from the page history. This is what's holding it up: each time a thread is restored, the clock for that thread is reset even if no new posts were added and none of its timestamps were altered.Looks like its just the 2 of at the moment but I need to visit to get an image for the Shrine of Taharqa article I'm planning. ©Geni ( talk) 17:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Redrose64 :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Would you mind expanding slightly on your rather bald summary for this edit, please? Why does having two linked pieces of information (a citation and the origin of the citation) split over two entirely separate sections constitute "correct"? Pyrop e 21:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
NO MORE REVIRTING EDITS PLEASE REDROSE64 Robbie Kirillov ( talk) 11:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
YOU ARE SOON GONNA BE FIRED AND BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA! Robbie Kirillov ( talk) 14:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I shouldn't have removed it Alon Alush ( talk) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Oddly, I'm thanking you for the revert—I was struggling to find the correct logic for the line breaks and settled on (i) pipes being separators and (ii) the hyphenation principle that the end of a line should suggest the start of the next.
What I'm more concerned about is the wholesale mangling of the formatting that resulted when vast numbers of quotation marks were added and things taken outside <code>
tags that belonged inside. I wonder if it just needs rolling back to before those edits.
Musiconeologist (
talk) 19:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
You were quite right that University railway station (England) was unlikely to have a photograph that was out of date; the photo of the new station was up more than a month before the station buildings were opened (in January 2024). Klbrain ( talk) 21:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Redrose64 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I would like a way to modify a time-date stamp such that it's still recognizable by humans but not by the archive bot. Very occasionally, there is a need to time-stamp something without extending the retention of a discussion that is approaching auto-archival. Can you suggest the best way to do this? ― Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Joe_Flacco#Etymology_for_"Stint" I don't get how that's a problem if I'm not using it to request comments at the moment. I imagine it's just a misunderstanding. ProofCreature ( talk) 15:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Redrose64, I saw your comment on David Lammy talk page RFC. Should I restart a new RFC and use that question?
Are the list of references not important to answer the question, I believed it was because this is a contentious issue and the references reveal a potential preference of David Lammy in the article. Can you briefly explain why they are not?
Also one user has dropped their objection, changing from a no to neutral, what advice do you have if the 3rd user doesn't engage?
Trying to learn, thanks. Erzan ( talk) 12:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag is directly followed by a
brief and neutral statement, optional signature, and mandatory timestamp. A statement containing nineteen inline external links is no way brief. You might like to read up on
WP:WRFC but that's not binding. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 00:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
At the moment it looks like just the two of us. What do you want to do? ©Geni ( talk) 19:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page South London line, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 19:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Please can you help me as to how to find a line number in an article. So far I have found no method. The difficult situation arises in differences between revisions when there is no context to search on and there is repetitive material in a table eg in [1]. How can I find the line 690 in the article? Best wishes. SovalValtos ( talk) 17:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the tipoff where I could find a couple more flavours. ©Geni ( talk) 16:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you fixed something at Talk:Fani Willis#RFC: alleged misuse of funds. Would you be willing to close the discussion? It seems to have run out of steam, and there also seems to be a consensus. Thanks! Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
You fully protected this redirect for vandalism back in 2007, and I highly doubt that it is still needed. The article it redirects to is only semi-protected. Would you mind removing or downgrading the protection? QuicoleJR ( talk) 14:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Just sending this to be polite, but do you mind if I nick your constants template? Sneezless ( talk) ( contribs) 21:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I'll be in London in a couple of months as part of a European trip with my mother ... hopefully we'll see you at the Wikipedia meetup then! Today we've started the mammoth task of printing out tickets and so forth for the trip (mobile phones aren't the best for either of us, for different reasons), so that reminded me to let you know. Graham87 ( talk) 11:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I see you reverted my edit on WP:CR where I archived a load of discussions. I did this because I saw some discussions that have been marked as done but not archived for 2 weeks now, and the fact that other editors have done the same thing - although now I see you also reverted their edits. I definitely think some form of notice regarding the manual archiving, like the note at WP:ANI, would be a good idea. What do you think? JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
done}}
and similar templates. A third is that it selects threads to archive based not on timestamps but on activity as read from the page history. This is what's holding it up: each time a thread is restored, the clock for that thread is reset even if no new posts were added and none of its timestamps were altered.Looks like its just the 2 of at the moment but I need to visit to get an image for the Shrine of Taharqa article I'm planning. ©Geni ( talk) 17:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Redrose64 :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Would you mind expanding slightly on your rather bald summary for this edit, please? Why does having two linked pieces of information (a citation and the origin of the citation) split over two entirely separate sections constitute "correct"? Pyrop e 21:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
NO MORE REVIRTING EDITS PLEASE REDROSE64 Robbie Kirillov ( talk) 11:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
YOU ARE SOON GONNA BE FIRED AND BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA! Robbie Kirillov ( talk) 14:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I shouldn't have removed it Alon Alush ( talk) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Oddly, I'm thanking you for the revert—I was struggling to find the correct logic for the line breaks and settled on (i) pipes being separators and (ii) the hyphenation principle that the end of a line should suggest the start of the next.
What I'm more concerned about is the wholesale mangling of the formatting that resulted when vast numbers of quotation marks were added and things taken outside <code>
tags that belonged inside. I wonder if it just needs rolling back to before those edits.
Musiconeologist (
talk) 19:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
You were quite right that University railway station (England) was unlikely to have a photograph that was out of date; the photo of the new station was up more than a month before the station buildings were opened (in January 2024). Klbrain ( talk) 21:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)