Hello, Redrose64!
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for
your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your
talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "
adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a
WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click
here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 |
Talk 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Pro tip requested
I would like a way to modify a time-date stamp such that it's still recognizable by humans but not by the archive bot. Very occasionally, there is a need to time-stamp something without extending the retention of a discussion that is approaching auto-archival. Can you suggest the best way to do this? ―
Mandruss☎ 01:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It would depend upon the bot - at least one uses the most recent timestamp in the thread, at least one looks at the times in the page history. So, which page are we talking about? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 23:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
That uses
lowercase sigmabot III (
talk·contribs). I'm fairly sure that this bot can be defeated by using a timestamp that doesn't exactly match the format used by the standard four- or five-tilde signature. You could try rearranging the date to be in U.S. format (Month day, year), leaving the time and timezone alone. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that sounds like it should work. I'll have to save it for future reference; someone else has commented subsequently in the discussion, making my time stamp moot in this case. ―
Mandruss☎ 11:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The rfc template must not be placed inside comment tags
Hello Redrose64, I saw your comment on David Lammy
talk page RFC. Should I restart a new RFC and use that question?
Are the list of references not important to answer the question, I believed it was because this is a contentious issue and the references reveal a potential preference of David Lammy in the article. Can you briefly explain why they are not?
Also one user has dropped their objection, changing from a no to neutral, what advice do you have if the 3rd user doesn't engage?
Trying to learn, thanks.
Erzan (
talk) 12:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Erzan: There shouldn't be a need to restart the RfC. Just make sure that the existing {{
rfc}} tag is directly followed by a
brief and neutral statement, optional signature, and mandatory timestamp. A statement containing nineteen inline external links is no way brief. You might like to read up on
WP:WRFC but that's not binding. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 00:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Geni I am hopeful, but I will still be in bed art 0830 whether I'm coming or not
Awkward42 (
talk) [the alternate account of
Thryduulf (
talk)] 23:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, I'm
Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that
this edit performed by you, on the page
South London line, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "
missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (
Fix |
Ask for help)
Please can you help me as to how to find a line number in an article. So far I have found no method. The difficult situation arises in differences between revisions when there is no context to search on and there is repetitive material in a table eg in
[1]. How can I find the line 690 in the article? Best wishes.
SovalValtos (
talk) 17:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Personally I never bother with the line numbers. To find the line concerned, I mark some of the text in the diff - sufficient to uniquely identify the text but not spanning into a second line. I copy this to clipboard, then I go to the relevant section (in this case
Preserved locos) and open it in source editor. Then I use the browser's find feature (usually Ctrl-F) and paste in the text from the clipboard. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you, that is what I usually do. But what in the example would you search on? All there is is N/A or No which give several results.
SovalValtos (
talk) 03:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi there. I see you fixed something at
Talk:Fani Willis#RFC: alleged misuse of funds. Would you be willing to close the discussion? It seems to have run out of steam, and there also seems to be a consensus. Thanks!
Magnolia677 (
talk) 21:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Magnolia677: It's an RfC, and RfCs typically last 30 days. This RfC began at 16:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) so in the normal course of things Legobot will list it until 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC). If you really need it to be closed after just half its scheduled duration, please make your request at
WP:Closure requests, or see
WP:RFCEND. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 21:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
You fully protected this redirect for vandalism back in 2007, and I highly doubt that it is still needed. The article it redirects to is only semi-protected. Would you mind removing or downgrading the protection?
QuicoleJR (
talk) 14:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I misread the page history. Sorry!
QuicoleJR (
talk) 23:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Your Constants Template
Just sending this to be polite, but do you mind if I nick your constants template?
Sneezless (
talk) (
contribs) 21:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It's very out of date, I've not updated it in years. Mainly because I don't edit other Wikipedias (except Welsh) any more. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Heading to London in May
Hey, I'll be in London in a couple of months as part of a European trip with my mother ... hopefully we'll see you at the Wikipedia meetup then! Today we've started the mammoth task of printing out tickets and so forth for the trip (mobile phones aren't the best for either of us, for different reasons), so that reminded me to let you know.
Graham87 (
talk) 11:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Yep, I've swung the trip for the London one (I'd already put the page for it on my Meta watchlist). I didn't actually know that Oxford meetups had become more regular; I'd been looking deeply at this in 2022 (as you might remember) and it seems their times became re-standardised
around early 2023. Oh well, this way we can take mainland Europe at a more leisurely pace.
Graham87 (
talk) 01:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Graham87: It seemed to be irregular because we always skip December - Oxford meetups are eleven times a year, third Sunday of the month, i.e. one week after London; but the third Sunday in December (15 through 21 December inclusive) would be too close to Christmas. Around that time, the pubs are typically full up, often with of people on their workplace's Christmas drinks or dinners, and we can't get a table let alone a quiet one. Some people (myself included) get extra work in December, being the busiest time of the year in shops, and that can include Sunday work. In fact regular Oxford meetups resumed in
October 2022, some months after COVID-19 restrictions had been totally lifted. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Graham87: Quick update: the first UK meetup page for May has been created, it is at
Leeds on Saturday 4 May, that is, eight days before the London meetup. Leeds is about 185 miles from London, but there is a direct rail service that is frequent - twioe an hour; regular - trains are every thirty minutes; also quite fast - it takes about two hours and ten minutes. I really don't think that I can get to that one though, I would need to take three trains with a much longer journey time. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 17:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, yeah I'll be leaving Australia on 6 May so I don't think I'll be making it to that one either! :-) Just to clarify, I'll be in London from 8 to 16 May and in mainland Europe after that.
Graham87 (
talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, I see you reverted my edit on
WP:CR where I archived a load of discussions. I did this because I saw some discussions that have been marked as done but not archived for 2 weeks now, and the fact that other editors have done the same thing - although now I see you also reverted their edits. I definitely think some form of notice regarding the manual archiving, like the note at
WP:ANI, would be a good idea. What do you think? JML1148(
talk |
contribs) 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JML1148: ClueBot III would have archived them, given time. This bot doesn't act like lowercase sigmabot III, there are several differences. In essence, lowercase sigmabot III carries out a cut-and-paste, but ClueBot III does a lot more than that. The most important difference in this case is that it maintains an archive index (see example edits here and here), something that is not done by either manual archiving or by one-click-archiver scripts. A second is that it deactivates all of the {{
done}} and similar templates. A third is that it selects threads to archive based not on timestamps but on activity as read from the page history. This is what's holding it up: each time a thread is restored, the clock for that thread is reset even if no new posts were added and none of its timestamps were altered.
The notice at WP:ANI is in small type, and it's often overlooked or ignored. There's so much clutter at the top of WP:CR that anything extra there would probably be ignored too. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Redrose64 :) I'm looking for people to interview
here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested.
Clovermoss🍀(talk) 09:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Define "correct"
Would you mind expanding slightly on your rather bald summary for
this edit, please? Why does having two linked pieces of information (a citation and the origin of the citation) split over two entirely separate sections constitute "correct"?
Pyrope 21:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Pyrope: "Notes" is correct per
WP:CITESHORT which also shows the use of two level 2 headings; since I added that heading thirteen years ago,
WP:CITEVAR applies too. "Bibliography" is discouraged by
MOS:REFERENCES; personally I would have used "References" (per CITESHORT), but "Sources" was already in use - it goes right back to the creation of the article in 2008. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 21:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi
Redrose64. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, but I've been mulling my response a while. In short, I think we have a mismatch between various parts of: wanting to have a logical, clear, and succinct way for readers to look up information; poorly thought out and explained MoS guides; and misapplication of parts of MoS. CITESHORT's use of 'Notes' for the citations is weird and not very helpful to a reader. As that section itself states, 'notes' is a broad term that can cover all sorts of inline addenda, including citations, explanatory notes, additional information, and so on. I feel that if a section contains citations, it should probably be called 'Citations'. Keep it simple, and all that. Why they split the full citation from the short citation using two level two headings is not explained, and absent that, I think a reasonable justification (i.e. keeping all references together and making links from short to full citations clear) should easily trump 'per MOS' as a reason. This is what
WP:IAR is all about, after all. The use of the term 'bibliography' is only discouraged for biographic articles, where it might be confused with a list of works of the person in question. This clearly doesn't apply to an article about a loco, and I would argue that in the context of a 'References' section most intelligent readers would understand which use of the word is being invoked. Finally, improving an article's use to a reader shouldn't be subservient to maintaining an article's existing structure, no matter how long that has been in place. I hope you see what I am getting at here. I have been using the structure I employed at lots of articles over the past decade or more; so far I don't think anyone has had an objection, so yours intrigues me.
Pyrope 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Reverting
NO MORE REVIRTING EDITS PLEASE REDROSE64
Robbie Kirillov (
talk) 11:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
YOU ARE SOON GONNA BE FIRED AND BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA!
Robbie Kirillov (
talk) 14:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
But you told me that it doesn't fit for RfC
Oh sorry, I shouldn't have removed it
Alon Alush (
talk) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Code formatting
Oddly, I'm thanking you for the revert—I was struggling to find the correct logic for the line breaks and settled on (i) pipes being separators and (ii) the hyphenation principle that the end of a line should suggest the start of the next.
What I'm more concerned about is the wholesale mangling of the formatting that resulted when vast numbers of quotation marks were added and things taken outside <code> tags that belonged inside. I wonder if it just needs rolling back to before those edits.
Musiconeologist (
talk) 19:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Have we removed all those quote marks now? --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 19:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
There are still some near the end. I've not properly checked an earlier version yet, but I've a feeling the parameter names have been taken out of code style throughout as well. They certainly look a bit odd, because of the non-matching typeface.
Musiconeologist (
talk) 19:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)reply
University (Birmingham)
You were quite right that
University railway station (England) was unlikely to have a photograph that was out of date; the photo of the new station was up more than a month before the station buildings were opened (in January 2024).
Klbrain (
talk) 21:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Half an hour ago, on BBC South Today, there's an item on the paintings stolen from Christchurch. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply