User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 12

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thankyou; but I live in Didcot, so those are too far for me. However, I am aware of all of them - have a look at m:User:Redrose64#Meetups and the pages linked from that, particularly this edit history, which is the queue for the Geonotices. But if you want to meet me, try any Oxford meetup - the next is 19 April 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

TFD

Hello, I've started the first discussion about the TFD merge of Infobox closed London station and Infobox London Station. I just wanted to pick your brains, I've started the discussion at WikiProject UK Railways and I've notified WikiProject London Transport as well, are there any other rail projects that you think I should notify as interested parties? - X201 (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@X201: Make sure that there are notifications at Template talk:Infobox London station and of course Template talk:Infobox closed London station. It wouldn't hurt to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations. Not sure if Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains would be overkill. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't believe I forgot about notifying the Template pages. - X201 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Waverley Line - substantial edit - seeking advice

As per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification points 1 and 4.2, I am seeking advice on this substantial [1] edit on Waverley Line. Discussion at Talk:Waverley Line please.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@KlausFoehl: I am aware of it - the evidence for that is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been accused of selective canvassing, hence the above notice going to all March talk page contributors. Apologies for the noise.--KlausFoehl (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. Several edit wars but staying within 3rr, and selectively erasing their traces on the talk page, that is part of an annoying pattern. Close, but just not enough to get the admins involved.--KlausFoehl (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Template:Wikipedia.

Please see WP:APRIL and WP:FOOLS. Please note that I took special care not to have the nomination show on transcluded pages and the entire nomination decked in {{humor}} and {{april fools}} templates. And besides, it's not a namespace page. --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@WikiLeon: I don't care what namespace it's in, nor what silly templates you put on the nomination. Friviolity has no place in what is supposed to be a serious project to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. We get enough bad press as it is: don't make it worse. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Qubo

Hi Redrose64,

I understand you and I are going through this problem on the List of programs broadcast by Qubo. You and I worked hard correcting all the mistakes. Just letting you know 173.50.64.195 was responsible for all the vandalism on the Qubo page. The Qubo schedule change recently happened this Monday, but someone put the information in the future in which it did not happen yet. I do not know where this person get the information. In the past, List of programs broadcast by Qubo page was blocked and vandalized so therefore only people with wikipedia accounts were allowed to edit the page. Thank you for contributing the Qubo page and your hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbears22 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cbears22: My edit was to remove the {{pp-vandalism}}, which was no longer applicable because the protection had expired at 14:38, 6 March 2015; restoring this template will not re-protect the page: instead, you need to request a fresh protection at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Redrose64 for the instructions that you gave me to report this issue. This is the first time I tried this and I hope they accept my comments referring to List of programs broadcast by Qubo page. I have explained to them about the history of the Qubo page being vandalized and people putting in false information on the page. Cbears22 (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

HTML5

Hey,

I know you've left a few messages around the place about this sort of thing before, so you seem the best person to turn too. I've noticed that List of the verified oldest people does not display properly on mobile due to depreciated elements (namely bgcolor), however when I attempted to change it to background-color: #XXXXXX;, as per WP:HTML5, it didn't want to play ball. Am I missing something obvious? Thanks in advance, Mdann52 (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mdann52: I don't see any recent edits (going back to 1 April) to that page where background-color: ... was used, so I can't check how you did it. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't save the edits, as it just stripped all the colour away from the table. I'm on limited internet at the moment, I'll try and recreate it in a sandbox when I can. Mdann52 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Northern Rail

Hi there - could I bring Talk:Northern Rail#Fleetlistto your attention? User:Epm-84 keeps insisting that "seats per unit" column is kept in the fleetlist - despite the fact none of the other current TOC articles list this information (which he says isn't a valid reason for its removal). My position on that is: the information is available from other articles/sources and it makes the first column look cramped. I've given him an example of where subclass capacity variances occur on other articles - but this point was ignored

He also accused me of vandalising the article when all I did was remove the capacity column. Needless to say - I wasn't too pleased about that. I'm not sure how it works - but could WP:OWN be applicable here? I just get the impression unless the fleetlist isn't how he wants it he changes it - he's even bizarrely suggested removing the "routes" column (which has been included for at least five years) to accommodate his information in order to stop the first column being too narrow. He seems to be the only contributor of the article that wants to have such information included because whenever I've removed it - he's the only one that puts it back in again

Just wondering what help you can offer - because if I keep taking that column out he'll just keep putting it back in. Cheers - Coradia175 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Coradia175: I'm aware - I was mentioned at User talk:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered#Northern Rail talk article. Best place to discuss is Talk:Northern Rail, where I see that JamesSteamPacket (talk · contribs) started a thread at 01:30, 27 March 2015 - but you should ensure that WT:UKRAIL are aware, possibly also WT:RAIL. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I didn't notice - I apologise. It was me who started the thread - I changed my username shortly after starting that topic. Thanks for your advice - I will let WT:UKRAIL know and see what the best course of action is. Coradia175 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please help again

Hi, Redrose64 – here is something new that I need help to figure what is happening: at some point late on 3 February or early on the 4th, 24 superfluous project pages began to appear in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. The first three entries in that cat are always there, but the 24 entries under "W" are all new. Questions are – 1) why are they all closed deletion discussions, 2) why have all of them been relisted at least once, and 3) how can they appear in that category and not have that category appear at the bottoms of their pages? And one more, why just these 24 project pages and no others? I'm at a loss to understand; I monitor that category almost daily to rid it of entries that someone has mistagged, but I don't see how those 24 project pages are making into that maintenance category. Please tell me what I'm missing, and thank you in advance for any light you can shed. – Paine  02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: This sounds very much like the problem reported at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 31#User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica. Checking, I see that these AfD pages are all listed as being in mainspace so this is definitely the same problem. There is a phabricator ticket for this, where you will see that in the comment by Anomie of Mon, Feb 2, 4:30 PM, that the problem is somewhat wider than these AFDs, all of which are listed (the order seems random: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wo_sukuu_kai is near the top, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yosi_Sergant near the bottom). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That all looks pretty gnarly – pages that look to us as if they're in one namespace, but to a computer look as if they're in a different namespace – real "Twilight Zone". So, odd effect from a recent software change? sabotage? what? – Paine  15:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You really need to read that phab ticket to get the whole story. It looks like a software bug though. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly related?

And now there is a user's common.js page that has managed to wind up in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. There is no indication on that page that it is in the category. I left an inquiry on the user's talk page. Do you think this might be related to the above? – Paine  09:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: It's a feature of the MediaWiki parser that code on a JavaScript page that looks like a MediaWiki template is processed as if it were an actual template, and so the page appears in the WhatLinksHere list for that template, and the template is also expanded to process any categories that it sets. Did this edit by Plantdrew (talk · contribs) help? Another way would be to split the double brace so that it becomes two separate single braces, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the comment added by Plantdrew removed that editor's common.js file from CAT:WRONG. Industrial-strength weird. Thank you once again for your help! – Paine  08:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Idea on multiple pages

Hello!
I had that idea and I added it at WT:TH. But it went unnoticed. So I went to WP:VP. There I was asked to go to WP:BOTREQ. So what was I supposed to do if other editors asked me to discuss it at other places? Not arguing just asking
Should I delete it at other locations or?
And where will get a help for this idea?
aGastya  ✉ let's have a constructive talk about it (: 10:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: You posted at VPT at 05:01, 7 April 2015 - just over thirteen hours after you posted at Teahouse (15:59, 6 April 2015). In Wikipedia terms, that is quite a short time, since different people are in different time zones; and some are only available for short periods. People might have been visiting friends or relatives - 6 April 2015 was a public holiday in the UK, for instance.

Don't start any more threads, wait for replies. Only give up if it's more than a week. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. And I was unaware of the holiday in UK! But as I mentioned, if another editor asks me to post it over some where, I must follow him or not?
aGastya  ✉ let's have a constructive talk about it (: 14:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The key thing is not to conduct the same discussion in more than one place. Starting a discussion is good, but to post the same question in a second place can be confusing, especially for people that are aware of only one of them. You get two or more sets of replies, which may contradict each other; those leaving the replies may be unaware of that. Rather than start a second discussion, leave a note linking back to the original. This is covered at WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but now I must wait at least for a week. Isn't it
aGastya  ✉ let's have a constructive talk about it (: 15:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Upminster station

Hi! I removed it because I though Rose doesn't support the sentence like the one you said at Upminster Bridge. Vincent60030 (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: Have you got Rose? It gives plenty of information about the introduction and withdrawal of services, with a full set of dates for every station and stretch of line, but it says nothing at all about whether services were steam or electric. Against this green (District) stretch of line, it says "services resumed BARKING to UPMINSTER 12.9.1932", which directly supports the statement in the Upminster station article "services of the District resumed to Upminster in 1932". The ref is therefore valid. Please don't remove refs unless you have checked them yourself, and found that they do not support any of the preceding material. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64:Nope, I haven't got the book. I tried to read it online but there is no online version sadly. :( Vincent60030 (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not online; and it's also not a book. It's a big fold-out map, 1,000 by 707.1 millimetres (39.4 in × 27.8 in) (B1 size) very much inspired by the London Underground Diagram. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thanks for letting me know. Btw, can you take a look at the Did you Know suggestions for the Wikiproject? It has some backlog. :p Vincent60030 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Slambo (talk · contribs) normally handles those. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I presume you mean the DYK for Portal:UK Railways and it's suggestion page? No, I spend my portal editing time keeping Portal:Trains as current as I can. I haven't had too many suggestions for that page's DYK entries in a while, and usually end up scanning through the unassessed articles for candidates. I do, however, include entries within WP:UKRAIL's scope on Portal:Trains frequently, such as the current selected article, Angel tube station. Slambo (Speak) 16:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Grading scheme

Before any changes are made to Grading scheme template because of Chealer suggestions.... I suggest you read over Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#‎Requesting topic ban from all Wikipedia-related pages for Chealer. This editors has a problem with the grading scheme. -- Moxy (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting changes

Hi,

I'm a bit new to the whole wiki editing thing but I can't understand why an edit I made to a page providing an example, via a youtube video, was reverted. The video clearly demonstrates the rather strange noise made by the class 444, and 450, units. So where does the problem lay please?

Cheers,

Trainspots Editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainspots Editor (talk • contribs) 16:33, 9 April 2015

Mostly it's because of our core policies of verifiability and No original research. Youtube, when not an outright copyright violation (which is grounds for immediate removal), is seen as a self-published source, and so not reliable. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I must be missing a point here. I am qualifying a comment that has 'citation needed' with a video I shot (so not a copyright viloation) that I feel is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainspots Editor (talk • contribs) 18:33, 9 April 2015

You may feel that it is reliable, but others may not. I didn't say that all YouTube clips are copyvios: earlier, I mentioned WP:NOR and WP:SPS. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed: reason

Thanks for reverting my incorrect edit to Template:Citation needed documentation on "reason=". As it happens I am using Firefox 37.0.1. As behaviour changed many months ago with the FF of the time and basically the same setup, I concluded that operation of the template had "obviously" changed; what must have happened is that some FF configuration change or extension sent things awry, without my noticing at the time. I didn't think that browser rendering would change in this way. If you have any idea of the cause I'd be grateful for suggestions, but otherwise it's obviously my job to reinstall FF and add extensions one by one. The source code for the template on a page is

<sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i><a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"><span title="argument of reason field (April 2015)">citation needed</span></a></i>]</sup>

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a Firefox extension (don't know which) that is in the habit of adding   where there wasn't one before, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#What happened to the UNDO feature?!?. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't have that extension, so not that. Disabling popup blocker and AdBlock don't help. A clean copy of FF works properly (as you know); so does Chrome. So I must either slog it out, or just not bother. Pol098 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

When I have a discussion that refers, lets say, to guideline, etc. as it exists now, I may wish to link to the current format of the working when quoting it. It is one option. And the benefit is where the language may change in the future, and I want to maintain a link to the current form of language. Also, where it is a link to a talkpage discussion, which may be moved (into archives, for example), I think it may be clearer and not be impacted by such a subsequent move. So on occasion, for those reasons, I may choose to link via url. Am I incorrect in either or both of my understandings? I see, you've changed my links, in what I had written in talk pages, as though my format were completely verboten. (I know you don't willy nilly refactor others' talk page posts, without excellent cause). Is that the case? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The three links that I altered here go to the same version of the page and the same place within the page.

In one case I removed the https: but left the rest of the (external) link alone: this makes a protocol-relative link and is preferable because some people cannot use a https: connection.

In the other two cases, and also in this edit I altered external links to the internal form. Again, the change avoids forcing people to https: but it also makes the link visible through "what links here". Another benefit is that if the thread that is being linked to gets archived, the archiving bot can update the link to point to the archive (like this) - they do not do this if an external link is used, and so the link is broken. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Uncharted territory for me. Shall have to carve out time to study it. What of my concerns. Am I wrong?

For example, I wrote in my post: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Refimprove#How_to_use Usage; How to Use]

You refactored my writing in my post. To: [[Template:Refimprove#How_to_use|Usage; How to Use]]

If the language changes tomorrow, and in two days someone clicks through my post ... doesn't your change mean they no longer have the benefit of seeing what I wanted them to see, when I wrote my post? Because they will no longer click through to where I wanted to send them -- to see the "then-current" language. Instead, they will see the "as-revised, rather than then-current" language. That's not what I wish to direct them to.

And if that is the case, why am I not entitled to have future readers see precisely what I wanted them to see? Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The links that you used, and which I altered, were all links to the current version - that's not the version that was current when you made the link, but the version that is current when somebody follows the link. Both forms are therefore vulnerable to page edits. If you want them to see a specific version, the link needs to include the version ID (known as the oldid) - if this is absent, as in all of the cases examined so far, the link always goes to the current version of the page. Links that include the oldid are called permalinks.

In the case of the subsection Template:Refimprove#How to use, this is inside the green box headed "Template documentation", so it's part of the template's documentation subpage; and so a permalink to the main template will not guarantee that a specific version of the documentation will be shown - in fact, you'll again get the current version. You need to link to the doc page, and use an appropriate permalink for that. At the top of the green "Template documentation" box are some links "[view] [edit] [history] [purge]" - click "view" to get directly to the doc subpage.

The oldid of the most recent revision may be obtained from the link in the left margin that is titled "Permanent link"; the oldid of all revisions (both most recent and older) may be obtained from the date/time links in the page history (also from the date/time links in a user's contributions). Having located the link for the version that you're interested in, click it. You can use that URL directly, but this is an external link and it's always preferable to use an internal link, so we need to modify it. Notice that the URL in the address bar of your browser has become more complicated: the part that you're interested in is the number after &oldid= - that number is the oldid. Start off with [[Special:Permalink/ and add the oldid to that, followed by a hash and the subsection name: this gives [[Special:Permalink/649766506#How to use]] which displays as Special:Permalink/649766506#How to use and it may be piped like this. Now, if the template documentation changes, that link will always be to the version as it was following the edit at 00:16, 4 March 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, this is quite helpful. Thanks for devoting the time to school me. I may have known this once, but clearly forgot it. Will have to study it. Shall remit if I have questions. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the first change in this edit does point to a specific revision, since the URL includes an oldid= parameter. That link could have been made less like an external link in either of two ways: (i) use the {{diff}} template - {{diff|Roman Catholic High School|655887189|655884719|restored the refimprove tag}} → restored the refimprove tag; or (ii) use the construct [[Special:Diff/655887189|restored the refimprove tag]] → restored the refimprove tag. Notice that in (ii) the number is not necessarily the value of the oldid, but the higher of the two numbers in the original URL, which were 655887189 and 655884719. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Baker Street Tube station picture in the London Evening Standard

So it was. Fancy that. Well, since I uploaded it under a free licence, I suppose that anyone may use it for any purpose, but still, it would have been nice if they had credited me, even if only with my Wiki username. I have made a complaint to the Evening Standard – nothing earth-shattering, no threats of lawsuits or anything – just to tell them that it might have been courteous to credit the photographer, even if the picture is free. Thank you for pointing it out for me. Kelisi (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: The London Evening Standard has promptly rectified the oversight. Thank you again. Kelisi (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that it now says "Published: 18 March 2015 Updated: 11:22, 13 April 2015" --Redrose64 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Girl Meets World Episodes 'move' request

Hello Redrose64! I just thought you should be aware of this article 'move' discussion, as it has a direct bearing on a page that you fully protected back in July 2014: List of Girl Meets World episodes. Just so you know! --IJBall (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops! I see now that you didn't fully protect that!... Still, hopefully you can help! --IJBall (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Wootton Basset SPAD incident

I've created the 2015 Wootton Basset SPAD incident article. Rail has a full report in tomorrow's issue, which I intend to purchase. This is a case where no deaths ≠ no notability. I hope to add diagrams and a map, but am not so sure re the technical details behind the overrun. Maybe it will be clearer once I've perused Rail and Heritage Railway, which I forgot was out. Mjroots (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Although it happened in early March, there's no mention in the April 2015 issue of The Railway Magazine (published 1 April). Perhaps the incident didn't become known outside of WCRC and Network Rail until after that. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The story apparently broke on 2 April, when WCRC was banned. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

They have maximum time to prepare a full article for publication in the May issue (pub. 6 May 2015). --Redrose64 (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway

There is a triangular junction on this line north of Bridgefoot station where it meets the Cockermouth and Workington Railway called Marron Junction ,which is shown at the top on the line template.

In that said junctional area, there was a railway station that closed in 1897 called Marron Junction station (some documents make reference to its name as Marronbridge Junction station) but amongst the historical societies in what is now Cumbria, there are two different views prevailing as to the ownership of this railway station. One group maintain its position on the junction prove it was a station of the Cockermouth and Workington Railway and another group insist that it was a station of the Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway.

On the line template for the Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway, all Wikipedia shows is just the triangular junction itself, but no mention of a railway station is shown. Conversely, if one looks at the line template for the Cockermouth and Workington Railway, whilst the note for the line connection is shown leading to the Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway, again no mention of a railway station is shown.

Is this the reason why such uncertainty has been the cause of not showing Marron Junction station on either of the two Wikipedia line templates?

109.155.204.83 (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC) (Paul Sidorczuk)

I have had two telephone calls this morning, one from either Cumbrian side of the argument, so I am still no wiser. I don't know what happened over the log in earlier today, so I added my user name to the draft before sending it to you.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Sidorczuk: Presumably this ia about Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway (where I have made just three edits, two of which were very minor), or Template:Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway RDT (a page which I have never edited). So I'm uncertain why have you posted here, and not at Talk:Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I note what you have said in relation to this matter, but your known expertise on the matters where both historical data and line template are concerned, plus your past dealings with matters on this line, it seemed to me to be the most obvious matter just to contact you directly, especially as I had reported two totally differing points of view with regard to which company's line that Marron Junction station actually was on in that triangular junction area, that being a matter that you surely must have been broached about in past years, when formulating the details so appearing on the line diagram template.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Sidorczuk: When replying to an existing thread, please don't start a new thread, instead use the "edit" link against the existing section heading. See WP:TP#Talk page use, second paragraph; also WP:THREAD.

If you look at the history for the template, you will see who created it, and who has subsequently amended it; notice that my name is not there. I was also not involved with "formulating the details so appearing on the line diagram template" - in fact, I don't know where it was discussed. It might not have been discussed at all, per WP:BOLD. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Quintinshill Disaster Centenary

Were you aware that a carriage identical to the ones involved in the disaster is under restoration at the Great Central Railway at Ruddington, Nottingham? It is a teak built 6 wheeler of the GCR and has still has the original gas tanks and pipework fitted that contributed so much to the devastating fire after the collision. It is hoped to have it completed - apart from the paintwork - in time for the centenary. Francis Bailey90.244.114.184 (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

London Paddington station

London Paddington station, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

I'm not so sure who was/were the reviewer for the earlier GA reviews but do you know who is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent60030 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 21 April 2015

I don't know much about the original GA assessment. The expected page name for that, Talk:London Paddington station/GA1, is a GA reassessment, which was created by Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) (these days, Malleus goes by the name Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), and is a highly experienced and respected GA reviewer) and that page has no edits by others. As for the original GA assessment, it appears to pre-date the present system; what I can find is all in the contributions of AGK (talk · contribs): these two edits on 29 December 2006 appear to be the nomination, and three days later, these edits appear to be the promotion. Judging by those edits, the article was at the time named Paddington station (it was moved to its present title on 15:23, 17 March 2007), but Talk:Paddington station/GA1 doesn't exist either, and does not appear in the page logs, so was not deleted or moved, therefore never existed. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a strange one. If there was no assessment conducted, presumably that now has to happen – but I suppose the reassessment will accomplish that in any case. If there's anything further I can do to help, do let me know. AGK [•] 14:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This was the review. Back then, GA reviews weren't generally written out, unless there were issues to raise - it was a simple "Does this meet the criteria - yes/no" exercise. Wikipedia's choking bureaucracy which demands everything become a form filling exercise had yet to develop back in 2007. – iridescent 15:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Cumbria articles missing geocoordinate data

Hi Redrose64. I'm sorry for my misunderstanding of which articles are usually assigned coordinates, thank you for putting me right. I'll try and add coordinates to those that did need them in the near future. Best wishes aricooperdavis (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK - I fixed some, like Bowscale and Brayton Park. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:British film score composers

Hi, sorry about my confused edits to Category:British film score composers and Category:English film score composers. Just to let you know that I was intending to remove the entry by Timatack who tried to put his name on the page by editing it directly. I must have edited the history pages which of course then removed any subsequent changes. Jodosma (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jodosma: But Timatack (talk · contribs)'s only edits to cat pages were reverted five years ago: British; English. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I realise that now. I wasn't paying attention at the time. I hope you don't think I've turned into a vandal! Jodosma (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Aldwych tube station

Thanks for looking after this when it was on the main page last week. I was travelling to Italy so couldn't keep an eye on it myself. --DavidCane (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For fixing this minor but annoying problem with the visibility of the orphan tag inside Multiple issues tag. Magioladitis (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Which class?

SE&CR 4-4-0 locomotive No.216, in service in 1912. Which class is it? Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you mean entered service in 1912; I expect that you're thinking of the engine whose firebox collapsed on 29 April 1912 after leaving Tunbridge Wells for Tonbridge. This was SECR F1 class no. 216, originally SER F class no. 216, new November 1895, rebuilt to F1 class in January 1909, last heavy repair 28 July 1911. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions

Hello R. This might be from the "no good deed goes unpunished" files. What began here has spread to here. Enigmaman (talk · contribs) has now taken it upon themselves to reinsert items that the IP and ‎DrWhoFanJ (talk · contribs) put there in violation of WP:SIGFORGE. Any advice you can give will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 21:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I merely left a link on the talk page. I did not forge anyone's signature or refactor their comments. Enigma^msg 21:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

In this edit you left a message signed 109.145.203.244. It is the very same message that I had previously posted on an entirely talk page User talk:109.145.203.244. Both of these are problematic to say the least. MarnetteD|Talk 21:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The message was originally posted by that IP. [2] You said it was a forged sig because you didn't write it there. So I removed your signature. That is all. Simple. Enigma^msg 21:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The original message was posted, by me, here The IP then forged JM-W's signature here and moved my message of thanks to JM-W's talk page here. sinebot then signed that message with the IPs signature here for reasons unknown ‎DrWhoFanJ (talk · contribs) removed that edit here. Since I never made a post to that talk page I removed the post with my signature on it here here. Since then you have continued to try and put some form of the edit that I never made to that page back on it. The thing that you have missed is that JM-W hasn't edited since Sept of 2012. The bottom line is we have gotten all twisted up over nothing. My apologies to you Enigmaman for taking this personally and using in appropriate language and templates. An even bigger apology you RedRose for letting this spill over and take up so much room and time on your talk page. Please feel free to remove it and I hope that you both have a nice weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am aware the account has not edited since 2012. I removed your name from the post the IP made and posted that. You deleted it. "Since then you have continued to try and put some form of the edit". I did not continue to try. After you removed it, I merely left a link on the page, which you also objected to. I only re-added the edit left by the IP once. I stand by what I said. Leaving a link to a message (which is what I did) on someone's talk page is not violating any policy. I'm sorry you see it differently. Enigma^msg 22:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:James Morris-Wyatt is still me, I just forgot the password for my old account, so had to set up a new one. DrWhoFanJ (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We have no proof that James Morris-Wyatt and DrWhoFanJ are the same person, nor even that 109.145.203.244 (talk) is also the same person. It's quite simple: leave signatures as they were originally posted, unless either WP:UNSIGNED or WP:SIGCLEAN applies, in which case the signature must still link to the username who actually made the post. In the case of this post, it was definitely made by 109.145.203.244 (talk) and so it was signed as such by SineBot (talk · contribs) (which is authorised to make such edits, in accordance with WP:UNSIGNED). If that post had been made by somebody in possession of a login name, and that person had forgotten to log in, the correct action would have been for 109.145.203.244 to self-revert, then log in and re-add the post concerned, with a valid, unforged signature. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The kitten of impenetrability

For deciphering another editor's unfinished and impenetrable edit and finishing it and making it work

Fiddle Faddle 15:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There are no MPs

Hi, Pardon me if I undo your undoing on Malcolm Rifkind. As it says here

When Parliament is dissolved, every seat in the House of Commons becomes vacant. All business in the House comes to an end. There are no Members of Parliament. MPs revert to being members of the public and lose privileges associated with being a Member of Parliament.

--Cavrdg (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

But we don't update the MP pages until after the election, at which time we will know who is definitely out of office. Otherwise, we would need to update 650 pages on dissolution, only to have to alter 500-600 of them again after the election. Those who are re-elected, we show as having been in office continuously; those who are defeated, or do not seek re-election, we will show as having left office on 7 May 2015. This is a future date at this present moment, so we don't yet show Rifkind as a "former" MP. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That is sensible for people who may be re-elected but for ones like Rifkind who are standing down, it's clear they won't MPs again after the election.--Cavrdg (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Am am no edit warrior Redrose64 but rather point to your hypocrisy. You want the basic history of every railway line under every railway station yet you want to adopt an atrocious neologism, which is, where you would want to be unusually precise about the day an MP leaves office, you think you would go for the day or working day before an election. Some sense of proportion here and of course public appreciation would be appreciated: railway station users do not want people to be too cretinous about their minutiae in my experience whereas most of the public around Europe would want to see their politicians 'in office' i.e. working for a minimal amount of time possible given how little legislation these days they produce and audit they get involved in for such a great deal of money. - Adam37 Talk 14:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You say in reverting my edit to Menzies Campbell that "he's still an MP (in case of a sudden recall of Parliament etc.) until the returning officer declares a result in favour of a different candidate" - where on earth do you get that idea from... Certainly not parliament.uk Mark Hamid (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

British MPs

Re your Nick Clegg edit- In law when UK Parliament is disolved all MPs cease to be MPs. Please refer to the Government web site: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/dissolution/

which states: "When Parliament is dissolved, every seat in the House of Commons becomes vacant. All business in the House comes to an end. There are no Members of Parliament. MPs revert to being members of the public and lose privileges associated with being a Member of Parliament."

The government however continues and the PM continues to be PM.

Regards. Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.48.225 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Poland/doc

I believe that you are mistaken. If one clicks on the "Show" button at "More detailed criteria" under B at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Assessment#Quality scale it shows the full list. --Bejnar (talk) 03:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bejnar: It does indeed show the full list of six: but that table is transcluded from {{Grading scheme}}, and is shared by many WikiProjects - it's not specific to WikiProject Poland. The {{WikiProject Poland}} template itself is only coded to recognise checklist parameters up to |b5=: if you view source for that template, you will see the lines

|b1={{{b1|}}}|b2={{{b2|}}}|b3={{{b3|}}}|b4={{{b4|}}}|b5={{{b5|}}}<!--|b6={{{b6|}}}-->

and

|b1={{{b1|}}}|b2={{{b2|}}}|b3={{{b3|}}}|b4={{{b4|}}}|b5={{{b5|}}}<!--|b6={{{b6|}}}-->

- notice that in both cases the code for b6 is inside <!-- --> - these are HTML comment markers, which render the code ineffective.

If you go to any page in Category:B-Class Poland-related articles and click the "[show]" link to the right of "This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:", you will find that criterion 6 is never listed, even if |b6=yes has been set - such as with Talk:1937 peasant strike in Poland. If the |b6= parameter is set to no - or even omitted, as with Talk:1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash, the article remains in Category:B-Class Poland-related articles instead of being placed in Category:C-Class Poland-related articles and Category:Poland articles with an incomplete B-Class checklist, as it would be if any of |b1= to |b5= were not set to yes.

This is what Template talk:WikiProject Poland#Template-protected edit request on 6 May 2015 is all about - getting {{WikiProject Poland}} to recognise |b6= as well as the first five. Once the parameter is recognised by the template, the documentation may easily be amended to follow suit. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct that is why I requested that Template:WikiProject Poland be uncloaked with respect to B6. --Bejnar (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Until the {{WikiProject Poland}} template does recognise |b6=, it would be misleading for the documentation to give the impression that the parameter is valid. Otherwise, people might say "I've set |b6=yes and it's not appearing in the checklist"; or "This article satisfies b1 to b5, but it fails b6, so I set |b6=no but it's still showing as B-class, not C-class". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Cahn Please Change

Jonathan Cahn

His correct birthday is: September 25, 1959 - www.safesearch.net/jonathan+Cahn

Another correction that should go up is:

The article speaks of The Harbinger, which is right, but makes no mention of the next major book The Mystery of the Shemitah, which has not only been a NYTimes bestseller, but has come out even stronger than did The Harbinger. A simple sentence along the lines of:

In 2014, Cahn released The Mystery of the Shemitah connecting the ancient biblical seven-year cycle to the rise and fall of economies, the collapse of Wall Street, and the rise and fall of nations.

One other should include: The original article had mentioned that Cahn gave the keynote address at the 2013 Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast.

should be replaced with: In 2013, Cahn delivered the keynote address in Washington DC, at the 2013 Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast.

Should also include:

In April, 2015, Cahn spoke at the United Nations concerning the persecution of Christians worldwide. He has spoken annually on Capitol Hill before Members of Congress and leaders of faith.

Thank you

BethIsrael (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@BethIsrael: I don't know why you're posting here. I have had nothing to do with the article Jonathan Cahn; if there is a problem with any article, you should make your concerns known at the article's talk page, which in this case is at Talk:Jonathan Cahn. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Middlesbrough railway station

Hello,

with regards wiki page "Middlesbrough Railway Station", I edited it to include references to the planned re-introduction of Middlesbrough to London services. These are scheduled to start from May 2020 as stated explicitly in the first reference "Mixed feelings' as plans for Teesside - London rail link announced", from the Middlesbrough Gazette live website. The second reference, "STAGECOACH-VIRGIN COMPANY AWARDED INTERCITY EAST COAST RAIL FRANCHISE" states that an improved timetable is to be introduced (including the Middlesbrough to London service) FROM May 2019 i.e. not all the service will be rolled out immediately. All the local news coverage of the Middlesbrough to London service stated the May 2020 date, this was the reason for the disappointment expressed by our local MP for the long delay in the service being introduced. I included the Stagecoach reference just to prove that they had the service in their plans, although they only state the date from which the new services would begin to be rolled out. As far as us Middlesbrough residents are concerned, we will not receive the new service until May 2020 and therefore have another 5 long years to wait - not ideal at all. Our local MP is trying to bring this forward but at the moment, May 2020 is the earliest date we will have the new service. Therefore, please can you edit the wiki page to reflect the May 2020 date for the new service.

Regards, CD1965

CD1965 (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this is related to the article Middlesbrough railway station, the place to bring up content concerns is at its talk page, Talk:Middlesbrough railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

RT template

Hello R. When you have a moment could you add your input to this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Rotten Tomatoes external links. Thanks for your time and have a good week. MarnetteD|Talk 23:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I did it because of this request. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I posted this just before going to sleep last night. I see that everything has been worked out. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

London Overground

The information is correct. If you had bothered to look at the pages where the changes to the services occur, you will see that these are accurate. So please look in future and do some research by looking at other Wikipedia pages like I have and don't assume it's wrong, just because it's difficult to find out when the upcoming schedule for the new service will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David31584 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@David31584: No. Readers must not be expected to check other Wikipedia pages, which may change themselves (see WP:CIRCULAR). It is your responsibility to add references to reliable sources, per WP:BURDEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you ARE supposed to look at information on other pages because it may be useful, you just have to use something called "Common Sense" to see if it makes sense, sadly such a thing does not exist on the internet I notice. :( Anyway it turns out the information was false, so I have just removed the information in regards to the limited link to Liverpool Street via Stratford and Lea Bridge stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David31584 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Redrose can you please stop undoing the alterations to the London Overground page. I'm from London and I'm well aware of what stations will have correct interchanges and which do not. Clapton station has an interchange for the West Anglian Main Line, when London Overground services commence on May 31st, and people can interchange at that station for both the West Anglian Main line and the London Overground; Chingford branch line. I've removed the logo from Hackney Downs on the Chingford line as the direct interchange would be at Clapton. The most direct interchange for services to Cheshunt and Enfield Town would be at Hackney Downs, as neither service calls at Clapton. Clapton station itself is on a branch that connects the West Anglian Main Line with the Chingford line and the Seven Sisters line, which connects all services to Liverpool Street. If you look at the articles, you'll see these to be accurate.D31 (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't draw your own conclusions about which stations will be interchanges. Just because two TOCs have services calling at the same station does not make that station an interchange; for instance, both Chiltern Railways and First Great Western call at Kings Sutton, but it is not an interchange between them - the advertised interchange station is Banbury. A station becomes an interchange if the TOCs agree to coordinate their timetables to facilitate interchange, and also advertise it as such. The core policies applicable here are those of verifiability and original research; so, you need to cite your sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

LO problems

Hi Redrose. On my take page I am getting strongly worded messages about this almost edit war. I'm getting tired of it and if this refusal to heed the official information, and strong words continue, can we push for action to be taken? Thanks. 07:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likelife (talk • contribs)

@Likelife: They're doing it to me too, see #London Overground above. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't see that, unbelievable. Likelife (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Gene cluster

It was good to see you and the others yesterday. I was sorry to have to leave early.

You mentioned that you could find out for me the number of watchers of an article. Could you please do this for me, for Gene Cluster?

I find it odd that when the two students were at work on the article, in spring 2014, nine other editors contributed to the talk page commending what they were doing. But when I wrote on the talk page this January about my intention to remove most of what they had done, and later did so, no-one responded at all. Maproom (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maproom: Gene Cluster has none; but Gene cluster has 23. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And apologies for my typo. Maproom (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

SEML

Do you have any idea why the images are showing in the Accidents section? Is it anything to do with the route diagram. Given its size, I'm minded to move the diagram to its own section of the article. IMHO, the sections are in the wrong order anyway. History and Accidents should be the first two. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: it's documented behaviour of floated box-type objects that they're always displayed in sequence. An examination of the wikicode shows that all of the images are placed after the RDT, therefore they cannot display higher up than the top edge of the RDT. Since the top edge is pushed down by the bottom of the infobox, that pushes the images down too.

I also note that the RDT is very wide so it squashes everything to its left. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thought the RDT might have something to do with it. Am minded to give it the same treatment as the ECML diagram. Simplified diag for article and detailed diag on separate page. Mjroots (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sir B. McKenzie's Daughter's Lament For The 77th Mounted Lancers Retreat From The Straits Of Loch Knombe, In The Year Of Our Lord 1727, On The Occasion Of The Announcement Of Her Marriage To The Laird Of Kinleakie

Sir B. McKenzie's Daughter's Lament For The 77th Mounted Lancers Retreat From The Straits Of Loch Knombe, In The Year Of Our Lord 1727, On The Occasion Of The Announcement Of Her Marriage To The Laird Of Kinleakie

. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Thanks, but don't we normally crop these to the label area? Also, the licensing is suspect, since surely the text on the label is the copyright of Island Records? See e.g. File:ElvisPresley ThatsAllRight Sun 209 45.jpg or File:Chuck berry - johnny b goode - record label.jpg --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd have thought that anything copyrightable on the label would be de minimus on a picture of the entire record? I don't know though. If you want, please feel free to upload a (cropped) version as fair use - I'm not going to get time to do that for probably 10 days or so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Piping links to redirects

Please do not confuse [[redirect|target]] with [[target|redirect]]. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: I take it you refer to this edit and this one. To me, this reads as if you are advocating the use of [[Windows Redstone|Windows 10]] → Windows 10 instead of [[Windows 10]] → Windows 10. When might that be useful? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

1938 Tube stock

I apologise for the tardy response, but I have not been around for a while. I have the perfect and most reliable source for any material on the 1938 tube stock. Since this stock is now running on Network Rail lines, I have access to all of the technical documentation. Unfortunately it is not useable as a Wikipedia reference because it is still regarded as commercially sensistive (after nearly 80 years?) and therefore fails the verifiability requirements.

The 'A' end and 'D' end driving motor cars are constructionally identical. The driving cab end buffers are bolt on parts and the bogies are installed the opposite ways around for the two ends. In the case of each bogie, as was normal practice at the time, only one of the axles is driven. For both motor cars, the 'A' and 'C' axles are driven, the 'B' and 'D' axles are not. This means that for the 'A' end car, the axles (reading from the driving cab), are Driven - Not driven - Driven - Not driven. Whereas for the 'D' end car, the sequence is Not driven - Driven - Not driven - Driven. The bogie design requirement had an unforseen consequence. Traditionally, it had been the custom to place the king pin twice the distance from the non driven axle as it is from the driven. This places two thirds of the weight of the car on the driven axles and one third on the non driven which was intended to improve traction (trams followed the same practice). Derailments, though not common, did occur with sufficient frequency to be annoying.

Because the 'A' and 'D' end cars were identical, the king pins had to be in the middle of the bogies to allow them to be reversed. It is therefore possible to convert an 'A' end car into a 'D' end car by changing the buffer and reversing the bogies (and changing the little plate by the driver's window) though although I know Island Line have not done this, I am not aware the various previous owners did. The unintended result was that the central king pin placement resulted in far fewer derailments and was the main reason why the 1938 stock was regarded as so successful. Central king pin placement became the norm on all future constructions.

As for 'tractive effort'? Like much railway jargon, it may not be accurate from a technical standpoint, but everyone else around me here would know what I am talking about. Wait until I start talking about relays being 'up' or 'down' and being fitted with 'front contacts' and 'back contacts'! –LiveRail < Talk > 11:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count

Hi, do you know somebody who could start updating this again? Curious to see where things currently are.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: This is another of those reports that was updated by BernsteinBot (talk · contribs) and which stopped updating when Toolserver went down permanently, at the start of July 2014. You could ask the bot operator, MZMcBride (talk · contribs), but they have a lot of reports that are affected similarly. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks,♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is related. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

ping MZMcBride This sort of thing really ought to be readily available with the website statistics. It shouldn't have to take you any time to create a list! Perhaps you could convince the site developers to consider creating a live list of articles by editors along with number of site articles/edits and create a list once a year of the top 100 creators until they do so?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about reverting your edit there. Now I'm thinking if I could hide Twinkle's "vandalism" button... Alakzi (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr Who and the Pesctons

Dear RedRose, Please have a look at the results of your recent edit. I've refrained from simply reverting you so you can explain what 'dab' means (I am unfamiliar with this initialism) and also what template I am meant to be using for 'Part 1', etc. i.e., what is the appropriate size. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire: You refer, I take it, to this edit.

The term "dab" is short for "disambiguate", see WP:ESL#Removal of ambiguity, and in this case I noticed that the link "[[Hello, Dolly!]]" (which displays as "Hello, Dolly!") takes you to a disambiguation page. So, from the list given there, I selected the most likely topic, and altered the link to "[[Hello, Dolly! (song)|Hello, Dolly!]]", which displays as "Hello, Dolly!". This looks the same on the rendered page, but is non-ambiguous because it takes you straight to the desired page.

On Web pages (including Wikipedia) there is special markup for section and subsection headings; for accessibility reasons you shouldn't use either <big>...</big> tags or boldface to create a heading (<big>...</big> is also obsolete generally, see H:HTML#Obsolete elements). This markup is described at H:MARKUP#Section headings (more detail at Help:Section and MOS:HEAD), but essentially consists of from two to six pairs of equals signs enclosing the text of the heading or subheading: the more pairs that are used, the deeper the subsection level. There's a level 2 heading, marked up as == Dr Who and the Pesctons ==, at the top of this section. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was actually referring to the inconsistent equals signs (a typo) but I had not realized what else you'd done because I did not think to compare the whole text before/after revision for some reason. I'll fix that bit up if you haven't already. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had used ===Part 1== which should have been ===Part 1=== as you rightly spotted. Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You deserve a fine single malt, but this pop is the only thing the bar has! Thanks very much for sorting my archiving out, it's much appreciated. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Muchos gracias, Redrose64

		The Spain Barnstar of National Merit
		For adding .es to the "Find this book on Amazon.com" entry of the "Book sources" page. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:86.41.246.249

This IP, which you blocked, has been using talk page inappropriately. Wondering if you wanted to revoke TPA, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@L235: I've had that talk page deleted under WP:CSD#G10 twice already; this third creation is by far the mildest, which is why I left it. This is not the only IP that the perp has used: consider the contribs of

• 86.41.154.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (from 2 November 2014);
• 86.40.176.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (from 31 December 2014);
• 86.40.179.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (from 27 February 2015); and
• 86.41.246.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (from 13 March 2015),

and you'll see that they are indiscriminately reverting Oranjblud's edits. The edit summaries imply a personal dispute or vendetta against Oranjblud (talk · contribs), but I can't work out the motivation. Whether Oranjblud made good or bad edits in the first place is, to me, immaterial: the problem is the disruption caused by these reversions. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@L235: User 86.41.246.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made three more reverts just now. I blocked, and then rolled back all their edits. It's clear from the edit summaries - particularly the Potteric Carr one - that it's a personal matter. I gave them one month this time. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite, Happysailor, and Trim02: It's clear that 86.41.248.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the same person. Looks like we've got a WP:LTA case here. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Also 86.41.152.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (from 20 May 2015). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I really have no idea what this IPs issues are, but in particular I noticed outright blanking of a category created years ago, as a vendetta of sorts. Given the BS over at 86.41.248.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), in general I think that block on sight including removal of talk page access is appropriate (as they have outright admitted to abusing talk pages if blocked). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suspect a registered user, editing while logged out, which is sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK, third bullet). I have a fair idea who that might be. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Great Eastern Main Line RDT

Do you think there could be a case for semi-protecting Template:Great Eastern Main Line RDT? As an anonymous IP keeps reverting to an earlier version and reintroducing errors into it which I corrected a while back. G-13114 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda Talk page

The edit request was issued before the RFC. I don't understand? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: It doesn't matter which way around they occurred. A protected edit request should only be raised if the desired change is uncontroversial, or where consensus has been established. Since somebody decided to start an RfC on the matter, it's controversial enough that consensus is being sought. Therefore, the {{edit protected}} should not remain active. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I'm glad I asked, rather than be foolish on the talk page. Thanks very much. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect information on "List of Train operating companies"

Hello,

You are putting the incorrect info for the Southern part to the page. Southern has the next franchise which runs until 2021 so please stop taking this off.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37S47N (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@37S47N: Southern is the trading name of Govia Ltd, which is the franchisee for the South Central franchise. This franchise expires on 25 July 2015, i.e. in seven weeks time, on which date the South Central franchise will be combined with the Thameslink & Great Northern franchise to form a new Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise. The TOC for the new franchise will be Govia Thameslink Railway, which will retain the "Southern" brand for part of the operation, but by no means all. There is no such thing as a "South Central Thameslink Southern and Great Northern" franchise. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for pointing out that talk pages can take internal links and without any kind of complex cleanup. I've corrected this link in the other places I left it. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Honourific question

Hello Redrose64, I hope that you are well. This edit brings up a couple questions. I understand that Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is the full title. But the article title is Order of the British Empire. Should that article be moved to this over the redirect created 10 years ago? The other question is - since the link is piped and readers who don't edit the article won't see the wording, as well as the fact that both titles go to the same article, what difference does it make which version is used? I know the answer to the first question might change the second one. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question is strongly suspected to be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. A link like CBE is piped through a redirect because if you hover over that link, it shows the full title; and when you click on it, you get the "(Redirected from Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire)" message at the top of the page. It's also a WP:NOTBROKEN situation - one day, we might split out the five different levels into their own articles. The article must not be moved, since it covers seven awards -

• Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE)
• Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE)
• Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE)
• Dame Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (DBE)
• Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (KBE)
• Dame Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (GBE)
• Knight Grand Cross of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (GBE)

that is, five different levels, two having gender-specific titles (as I mentioned before, a lot of people think that "OBE" stands for "Order of the British Empire" - it doesn't, since the O stands for Officer). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to replay and explain things thoroughly. I had noticed your conversation with Bink about this long term problem editor as well. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

IP changes to honours links

Hell again R. I notice that 81.159.183.109 (talk · contribs) has been changing the links for various honours to match the name of the article. Based on how you explained this situation to me above this is an error correct? If so maybe you can explain it to the IP if you have the time. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I decided that the {{post-nominals}} template would be a better way of making the links, as tampering is more obvious since the visible part changes as well as the hidden part. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice solution to this situation. I did not know that the template existed so thanks for pointing it out. MarnetteD|Talk 17:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Well, that didn't put them off, see this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That is too bad R. Some editors (named as well as IPs) just don't understand what these template help to accomplish. There was one who never understood what the "film date" template was for. Other than that I hope that you are well and that you have a nice summer. MarnetteD|Talk 20:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nederlandse Spoorwegen and the railways in England

The railways in Merseyside and the North of England are run by Serco-Abellio which is part of Serco and Abellio. And Abellio is a subsidiary of Nederlandse Spoorwegen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 June 2015

@IkbenFrank: Perhaps they are: but it is not necessary to include that on every article that is related to Serco-Abellio. Including a link is sufficient; if people want to know who calls the shots at Serco-Abellio, they can follow the link: Wikipedia is not in the business of providing corporate PR hype. Just the facts, per WP:V, and presented neutrally, per WP:NPOV. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Marble Arch / Queensway

FYI, that pic you removed as being wrong station, is also at History of the London Underground as Queensway. Right away, driver! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)==

I know, and I already fixed the caption. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you but the picture of Queens Road station is indeed Queens Road station. Identifying very old photographs of stations can be very difficult and one often has to resort to a bit of detective work (even the assigned identity found in books and other publications frequently turns out to be wrong). However, in this case, there is nothing on the Commons image page or anywhere else that identifies this image as being Marble Arch, so this would be an unreferenced change.

This image has been matched to a similar picture known to be of Queens Road taken before the station opened (as the talk page to the image explains). The picture is not, and cannot be of Marble Arch. Marble Arch eastbound platform has three passenger walkways that intrude into the platform tunnel. The passenger exits are to the east of all three walkways as can be seen here (platform is north of the track). On the eastbound platform of Queensway (formerly Queens Road), the passenger exit is to the west of the two walkways (platform is also to the north of the track).

Indeed, at Marble Arch, there can be no passenger exit west of the westernmost walkway as half the width of the platform beyond this point is taken up by the emergency equipment storage units. It is not very clear in the Marble Arch picture because the perspective is weak so far away from the camera, but the space beyond is little more that one advertising panel wide (whereas in the Queens Road image, it is clearly around five such panels wide (and matches this picture of Queensway). Both westbound platforms are devoid of walkways so there can be no confusion there. I did try attempting to improve the resolution of the sign above the man with bowler hat's head, but the scan is sufficiently poor, that it is impossible to make out any lettering beyond the last word having four letters - which doesn't help in the slightest. –LiveRail < Talk > 18:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@LiveRail: we discussed this exact image at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 7#Name the station and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 27#The Where am I? Quiz. Question 4: 1890 and WWII. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Which just underlines the difficulties involved. It cannot be Marble Arch. If you like, next time I am at Marble Arch (not likely for a few weeks) I will take a photo looking west showing the layout. It will be immediately apparent that the station layout just does not match. As I said, the space beyond the westernmost walkway just does not have enough room before the tunnel portal and what room there is is occupied by the emergency equipment. On the other hand it matched Queensway almost perfectly. It matched the picture known to be of Queens Road perfectly, even down to the bending of the conduits under the walkway and the clearance obtained plus the position of the passenger exit sign (which cannot be present in any similar picture of Marble Arch). –LiveRail < Talk > 18:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: @LiveRail: But the platforms were extended before so how can we identify that? Vincent60030 (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Vincent60030:. Extending a platform seldom results in the distance between an overhead walkway and the tunnel portal being reduced to less than one fifth of what it used to be. Extending a platform does not require the walkway itself to be moved. –LiveRail < Talk > 09:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

AfD tool

Hello, Redrose64,
I once saw a tool that allowed an editor to see how they had voted in AfDs and compared that with the results of the closure. I've searched for it unsuccessfully and I thought I'd ask you about it since you seem to have a wider knowledge of Wikipedia than just about any other editor I've encountered. Does this description ring any bells? Thank you in advance! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: When I need that tool (which is rare) I normally look at an RfA page, where there's almost always one included in a collapsible section between the questions and the voting. It can be used for any registered user, they don't need to be an admin candidate. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you, I'll look for it there. I'm just curious to see if my votes were in line with the eventual AfD closure decisions. I appreciate your help. Have a good weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox television/ colour request

Could you please add bgcolour #222222 and fgcolour #FFFF66 to 24 (TV series). As the fact that 24 is a number there are so many articles contain titles that are 24. There is an album, game, song, film, an Indian series, a Turkish news channel, the year 24 BC and AD, a Jem song (to name a few). Most of them also contain an infobox. I also posted this Here Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@JohnGormleyJG: I'm not at all sure why you're asking me directly. The page is template-protected, but I see that you didn't use {{edit template-protected}}, nor does there seem to be consensus. There is more on this at WP:PER. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I came here because I noticed yo answered a few others for the infobox colour change. I am not at all sure what I should do. I was just requesting it for the 24 (TV Series) bgcolour #222222 and fgcolour #FFFF66 as I know that is done by template editors. Like the way Chuck (TV Series) is done. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@JohnGormleyJG: I edited that talk page once, almost three years ago; and I have never edited the template itself. Notice particularly the wording of my comment: "please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template" I then went on to direct the requestor to read Template talk:Infobox television/colour#White Collar and also to Template talk:Infobox television/colour#4 requests. I suggest that you read those threads, and if you still feel that your amendment is valid, you should seek consensus; and when you have got that, you should use {{edit template-protected}} in accordance with the instructions at WP:PER. But do it on Template talk:Infobox television/colour, not here. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 14:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing our pages

Good Evening RedRose64,

May I kindly ask you to stop erasing info that is factually correct on Wikipedia which relate to us as an company. This includes-

1) "List of Train operating companies". Our franchise does end in July, but we have been granted the next franchise which runs until 2021. Although this will be operated by Govia Thameslink Railway, there will be 4 separate brands/companies under GTR. One of which is us, Southern. Therefore franchise dates for the next franchise should be seen on this page under the Southern part. Furthermore, this will then match our main page for Wikipedia avoiding confusion and misinterpretation.

2) "Warblington railway station". I notice you keep taking off calling points of our services at Warblington and an user named "37S47N" keeps putting them back on. Keeping calling points on this page makes it easier for our customers so I can kindly ask you to stop erasing these.

If I see any more errors I will let you know.

Kind Regards, Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark377 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mark377: First, they are not "your" pages, see WP:OWN. Second, it is clear from the above that you have a conflict of interest, and so you are strongly discouraged from editing any pages related directly or indirectly to organisations with which you are involved (note: a warning has now been served). Third, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and is also not a railway timetable. If people want to know where trains stop, there are plenty of websites whose primary purpose is to give such information accurately.

There are something like 2500 railway stations in England, Scotland and Wales combined, and two timetable changes each year. We cannot hope to keep all of the station articles up to date, and it would be misleading to maintain a select few. Moreover, we are not paid to update these pages, so it is not in our interest to ensure that pages are not out of date. Hence, we have adopted the practice of showing a reduced amount of information for each station: which lines that the station is on, which are the adjacent stations, and which train operating companies serve it. Other articles exist for the lines and train operating companies; these are a better place to show stopping patterns, since there is then no need to duplicate information.

Wikipedia has some core content policies, which include those of verifiability and neutral point of view. If you believe that a page is in error, you should bring up the matter at the article's talk page, and suggest reliable third-party sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit you reverted Reply

If you take note, that edit wasn't done by me directly but rather a gadget I was using. I reported the bug and told them I would not be using the gadget until the bug is fixed.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@C678: It's a bug in exactly the same script that led to Technical 13 taking me to ArbCom last year (result: declined 0 to 7). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh. I'm not going to take it that far this time. ;-)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

archive wp talk:med

Moved to User talk:Σ/Archive/2015/July § mistake?

 – Redrose64 (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I know

I didn't want to give another red notification to ManetteD, so I came here, I know about that, You can see my comments there. No one else is complaining today and i was wondering if i am facing this alone. Or everyone? Can you view your edit count and articles created links? --Cosmic  Emperor  14:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No: it's a general problem, not specific to you. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for your patience and your expertise; I really do appreciate it. giso6150 (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you I first had these (the real thing, not a pic) at Wikimania London 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

It's just something I do when I feel like it. Do you mind adding me again? ~~thepoodlechef — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoodlechef (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Thepoodlechef: I'm not at all sure what you're talking about. Your last edit (to any page) was this one, which is now archived here. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

feet and inches

Bore da! I wonder if you could take a look at the Welsh Template:Height, please. 'ft' and 'in' in Welsh should be 'tr' and 'mod'. it's not clear which ones should be translated. This could be explained in the doc. file for other? Diolch yn fawr! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

cy:Nodyn:Height takes seven parameters, three of which have aliases: |meter= (aliases |meters=|metre=|metres=|m=) |foot= (aliases |feet=|ft=) |inch= (aliases |inches=|in=) |precision= |frac= |abbr= |wiki= and depending upon the combination of the first three of these (or their aliases), uses either of two subtemplates: {{m to ft in}} or {{ft in to m}}. The English {{Height}} is somewhat different, not least because it doesn't use those subtemplates but uses {{convert}} instead. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: Is Nodyn:Height/pwll tywod what you wanted to do? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this; left a message on your Welsh Talk Page, but this needs a double thanks - 'Diolch Dwbwl' in Welsh! As you know, there are but a few of us on cy, so all help (especially yours) is REALLY appreciated! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Women in the Royal Navy

Regarding one of our conversations earlier today, it seems that Commander Sarah West is (or was?) the most senior ranking female officer in the Royal Navy, three ranks below the junior admiral rank (Rear admiral (Royal Navy)). Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for the talk page stalking. I hope you enjoy it, because one will still be needed for the next long stretch of time! →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Odd edits

Ermmm ... this user? Sorry, I don't get it. Is anything they are doing correct?? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

London International Airport

Please see Talk:London International Airport#Recent move. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

London Underground

hello, why do you propose to remove my edit of London underground, the content has been upgraded. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradleyScottMatthers (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@BradleyScottMatthers: I explained why at Talk:London Underground/Archive 6#Reversion proposal. Per WP:MULTI, please discuss there. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Who needs grammar anyway?

Are you serious? Do we really want to come across as if we've never paid attention in primary school? Would it not be in WP's best interest to be taken seriously? Can we expect to be taken seriously if we cannot get simple grammar right? Jimp 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jimp: Per WP:MULTI, I've replied at Template talk:Track listing#Grammar is not needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

MULTI is a fair call. Thanks though for directing me there. Jimp 18:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI and Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh

Hey, I was about to post the following message at ANI, but the report closed before I had a chance:

Sorry, Redrose64, but we overlapped. While you were warning, I was blocking. I blocked the user for a week for edit warring and personal attacks (which were beyond the pale). I don't see anything useful the editor has done since creating an account a short time ago. It's also a highly unusual userpage for a "new" user.

Anyway, just wanted you to know that I didn't mean to step on your toes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: We didn't really overlap: you placed the block at 15:35 (UTC), but I had warned some time earlier, at 14:51 (UTC) - when I edited the ANI thread at 15:34 (UTC), I was simply logging the fact of my warning some 43 mins earlier. Thinking back, I was too light: a {{subst:uw-npa2}} was warranted, possibly a {{subst:uw-npa3}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Understood, but what I was doing before blocking was looking at the ANI report and then examining in some detail the user's edits. It wasn't until after I blocked that I noticed your warning when I added the block notice. Do you think the block or its duration was unjustified?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think either were unjustified; they did send two more attack messages after my warning. I took no action on those because MarnetteD had already reverted by the time that I saw them - and then the ANI got filed. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I will remember!

Yes I will. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A question concerning your edit to my user-page

I'm afraid, despite my reading the article you kindly appended to your explanation of your edit to my user-page, I am still none-the-wiser as to why you chose to remove the image (Gallifrey Sound of Drums.jpg). I am sure you had every reason to do so, however, I would still like an explanation as to why you removed said image.

On another note, I do feel my privacy is impinged by your edit. I recognise you are an administrator, however, I feel unhappy that, by virtue of your status, you feel you have the right to edit my PERSONAL user-page. I noticed your user-page is locked, so you would likely feel as breeched if it were the other way round. As you deleted my image moments after I posted it, I perceive you have my PERSONAL user-page on your watchlist (sorry if this is a mistaken deduction). I do not wish to seem inimical to you, but, even though I have been recently blocked, I feel it rude and an impeachment of my freedom and privacy as a wiki user. If the block is the reason for your placing my user-page on your watchlist, I assure you I am reformed, have no intent on re-offending and have issued a full and sincere apology to the user whom I offended.

I harbour no hard feelings towords you and hope you harbour none towards me as I mean no offence.

Thank you for your consideration and time,

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh: You can only use free images on your userpage, and [[File:Gallifrey Sound of Drums.jpg]] is listed as a non-free image being used under fair use. This means it can be used in article space, but not anywhere else (so not userspaces, drafts, disambiguation pages etc.), see WP:NFCCP#9. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:

Sorry, I did not realise the image was not free. I resent your accusation that I am 'talk page stalker', I feel my use of them is appropriate given the circumstances and attempt to minimise my use of them where-ever possible

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh: When User:Joseph2302 used the phrase "(talk page stalker)", he was describing himself as someone who reads (and responds to) posts on someone else's talk page. Some people also use (talk page watcher). Your use of this talk page to communicate with Redrose64 is definitely appropriate. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302 explains correctly why I removed the image File:Gallifrey Sound of Drums.jpg from the page User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh. Besides WP:NFCCP#9, you should also see WP:UP#Non-free images, where it says "non-free images found on a user page will be removed without warning".

As to the other matters, yes I am an administrator (evidence), but any user, admin or not (even someone who was not logged in), would have been justified in making the same edit, since WP:NFCCP is a policy with legal considerations. Although we do allow a lot of freedom on user pages, it is not complete freedom, see WP:UP and also WP:NOTWEBHOST. Please don't assume that user pages are "personal" - they can be viewed by anybody, so if you post something there, you must assume that sooner or later, somebody else will see what you put. By "locked", I take it you mean protected. My user page is not protected, and in fact it never has been. I don't know why you might think it protected: the normal indication of a protected page is that the relevant tab at the top says "View source" instead of "Edit" (also that there are no "[edit]" links on the sections), but this is not the case with User:Redrose64. Yes, I do have your user page on my watchlist: this is because I watched User talk:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh upon making this edit, and watching a talk page always watches the main page as well. This occurred 45 minutes before you were blocked.

As GoingBatty says, Joseph2302 was not accusing you of being a talk page stalker. @Joseph2302: instead of plain text, perhaps you should have used the {{tps}} template, which looks like this (talk page stalker) and has a clickable link. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you for resolving the matter. I now understand why you are/were watching my user page and had not realised that watching a talk page means watching a user page, thanks for informing me and I apologise if my criticism seemed coarse.

As for the use of 'personal', I merely meant that it is my user page and that I reserve that right to edit it. I realise that anyone may view it and am content with this. I understand why you edited but would have preferred if you could have appraised me of my misdemeanour via my talk page and have allowed me to remove the offending image myself, if I put something inappropriate on my user page in future, I would be obliged if you could kindly do this.

I feel your pedantry over the use of locked over protected was unwarranted, however - the image representing protection is of a padlock, thus I felt locked was an appropriate way to refer to it. I am afraid I did not know the correct term as I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia and have yet to become fully versed in the jargon. I feel your pedantic and abrasive handling of the matter, however, was against the co-operation and magnanimity expected between wiki users. Such minutiae are irrelevant to most and really the important thing is to convey one's meaning.

Regarding my accusation protection of your user page, I am very sorry, I should have checked. I think I confused you, somehow, with another user, possibly user:Beyond My Ken, oddly enough as his user-name bears no similarity to yours.

Finally, before you fall asleep in boredom, I would like to thank you and @GoingBatty: for pointing out to me talk page stalker does not refer to me and for kindly resolving the confusion with Joseph2302. @Joseph2302: Sorry about my unwarranted and ill-researched remonstrance. I meant no offence and hope you did not take any. If you did I am deeply sorry.

@Joseph2302:, @Redrose64: and @GoingBatty:, thanks to all of you for kindly replying to me,

Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Jimi Hendrix

Hi! Would you care to comment at this RfC regarding the article Jimi Hendrix? It is about whether "acid rock" belongs in the infobox or not. Dan56 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did you protect the page?

Hi Redrose64 why did you protect Seven Kings station page? There is no disputes anymore and anyway not many edits have been made a lot this week only since Tuesday 30 June 2015 in fact only a total of 8 edits were made each day, if you can you please unprotect Seven Kings station page because everyone has agreed and no more disputes are going on now. Everything has now been sorted out. Ron4563 (Ron4563) 21:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Because three of the previous four edits were reverts. Since you are one of the worst offenders, I certainly won't be unprotecting it on your request. As I have said before, discuss your proposed changes. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Khameese Kadhafi

Egyptian newspapers printed Khamis' arrival in Cairo. He is constantly in Algeria, So he must have went there on his father's or muttasim's orders on 21 August, 2011, or maybe elsewhere.SkeetSurt (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC) SkeetSurt (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@SkeetSurt: I have no idea what this is about. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on Book Source Wikipedia Page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9-78-935028140-6#Asia — The Book Source - Wikipedia page requested to add Country " India " under Asia. The people from india is not having any option " Find this Book " You are also requested to add ebcwebstore.com/ www.lexisnexis.com like sites under these option - "1. Search many individual booksellers, 2. Individual online booksellers 3. Under Country - India . so the people from India Can Search Books with ISBN. Priyadarshivishal23 (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)priyadarshivishal23

@Priyadarshivishal23: I answered at Wikipedia talk:Contact us#Protected edit request on 1 July 2015. There is absolutely no point in copying that thread here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: You are very polite & poltical while denying request.

But , I believe that you have not gone through with my request properly and replied back. The wiki pedia is to be fair & nutral .

It seems You are partial toward the Asian countries- When you have given the place & mentioned some Asian countries Under Asia - May I know Why India can not be added under Asian Countries.

Proposing to Add India under Asian Countries I think I am following policy - Wikipedia has some core content policies, which include those of verifiability and neutral point of view.

I have no intention to heart and dispute as i hve no personal benefits but I feel You are also unfair by denying - listing other Book Sources e.g proposed indian sites under ASia under India Under Existing existing link e.g Individual online booksellers.

Rast the question of searching books through isbn which you raised answering query , i found if one put isbn on these stores- book locators - they are able to search books n if you add such links, people will able to search refered books, mentioning ISBN through Book source wiki pedia page .

Your love toward AMAZON, EBAY ,FLIPCART and many more other Sellers and promoting them through Book Source wikipedia page and the reasoning to justify the same is out of my mind and against the wiki policy of be neutral and fair.

Are you really fair and answerable of your acts Why and on what grounds :following Individual online booksellers are LISTED if you are denying my requet. AMAZON, EBAY ,FLIPCART AND MAY OTHER Can I raise " Why & expect fair decision "

I feel you must be fair , positive and accept proposed positive changes.

   Find this book on Amazon.com (or .ca, .cn, .de, .es, .fr, .it, .jp, or .uk)
   Find this book on Angus & Robertson in Australia
   Find this book on Barnes & Noble
   Find this book on Better World Books
   Find this book on BibliOZ
   Find this book on The Book Depository
   Find this book on Books-A-Million
   Find this book on Bookworld
   Find this book on Chapters.indigo.ca
   Find this book on Dymocks in Australia
   Find this book on ECampus.com
   Find this book on eBay
   Find this book on Fishpond (Australia and New Zealand)
   Find this book on Flipkart
   Find this book on Guardian Unlimited
   Find this book on Half.com
   Find this book on Kenny Gallery
   Find this book on Livraria Cultura in Brazil
   Find this book on MPH Bookstore Malaysia
   Find this book on Melbourne University Bookshop (Australia)
   Find this book on National Bookstore
   Find this book on Play.com
   Find this book on Powell's Books
   Find this book on Rediff.com
   Find this book on Strand Book Store (used - NYC)
   Find this book on TextbookStop
   Find this book on Waterstones

Priyadarshivishal23 (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)priyadarshivishal23

@Priyadarshivishal23: This is not the place to request changes to Wikipedia:Book sources. As I have pointed out previously, that place is Wikipedia talk:Book sources. Also please be sparing in your use of bold text and all-capitals, see WP:SHOUT. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Also Priyadarshivishal23, it looks like you already added it to Wikipedia:Book sources, so everything's great now. Right? Thank you and have a nice day. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 15:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE I NEED YOUR HELP URGENTLY

Hi, please I need your help. This page Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi should be fully protected to prevent vandals from defacing the page.

Reasons of the request:

• 1. Vandalism (delete information supported by reliable sources)
• 2. Edit War
• 3. Conflict of interest
• 4. Sectarian and Ideological Bias

I really hope you will be able to help me. Your support would be GREATLY appreciated.

Thanks in advance!--BiKaz (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple post; answered at User talk:Elee#PLEASE I NEED YOUR HELP URGENTLY. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)