So, in response to your revert on Flashpoint. BlueMaxima's Flashpoint is a sufficiently notable topic, being mentioned by Gamasutra, Kotaku twice, Rock Paper Shotgun, GameRant, Vice, Wired, Bleeping Computer, and even more. It's also mentioned at the target Adobe Flash article, in the End of life (EOL) section. It's a common misconception that Flashpoint is solely for Adobe Flash archival, but the main page succinctly describes it as a "webgame preservation project": notably, NOT a "Flash game preservation project." Multiple other platforms are supported, such as Shockwave, Unity, VRML, and 3D Groove. I am obligated to confirm that I am personally involved with Flashpoint, being a curator and tester for the project, and I don't want Wikipedia to spread false info. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, so you have a conflict of interest. That means, in general, that you should not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships. Aside from that, disambiguation pages provide links to existing articles, not to articles which you feel should be created (for whatever reason). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I do have a COI, and I admitted it. I'm not being paid and nobody asked me to change this, as Flashpoint is volunteer work for me. You directed me to MOS:DABRL, which states that an item can be included in a disambiguation whether or not it has an article. Thus, it would be appropriate to add this as "BlueMaxima's Flashpoint, a web game preservation project" or "BlueMaxima's Flashpoint, a preservation project primarily focused on Adobe Flash". There's no reason we should keep this archaic and inaccurate description when there are correct ones that still follow the rules. Scrooge200 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It also states that there should be a blue link in the description. Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term. This appears to be absent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And I said that we can link to Adobe Flash as a related subject, with BlueMaxima's Flashpoint having its own article. Even if not, it still qualifies to be here. Scrooge200 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

But you didn't link to Adobe Flash as a related subject - you first removed that link. then you linked to a non-existent page. Both times you eliminated the blue link which you now agree should be present. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My issue was not with the link to Flash, it was with treating BlueMaxima's Flashpoint as an EXCLUSIVELY Flash-related program. I've enacted an edit, and I think this is the best possible solution, keeping the Flash link intact while not spreading false info. Scrooge200 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! The maintenance category CAT:MISCR is being polluted by User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox12 because the page contains an empty {{rcat shell}} template. I would remedy the situation, but the page is fully protected. Would you mind removing the template or adding an appropriate rcat to it? Warmest regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is part of a test that I made on behalf of Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs) and others. The purpose is that redirects using {{rcat shell}} should be able to autodetect the prot level, and categorise appropriately without the necessity to also use {{R fully protected}} and similar, because if the prot level changes (perhaps by simple expiry) we should't need another edit to update the protection template, it should self-adjust. So the full prot is deliberate, and the {{rcat shell}} needs to be present. Paine is not an admin, so couldn't set up the test themselves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, now there was one hekuva learning experience for me! and goodness! look at the date on those edits; Rcat shell's 6¹/₃ years old. It's true... time does fly when we're havin' FUN! Happiest of New Years to both of you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You know, Godsy, speaking of polluted categories we're still trying to find out why the Rcat shell pollutes the fully-protected category with non-fully-protected redirects, example. I tried to fix it, but my solution just caused more problems. Others have tried to fix it, as well. Figure that one out and you can be Template Editor of the Year! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi RedRose64, hope you been well. I am just wondering if you or someone could spare a little time looking at the articles of Doncaster (York Road) railway station and Wath North railway station.

I added the services on there and I understand no passenger services ever ran on the line but the stations were on a railway map. I got from here:

https://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/HBR/Braithwell.html .

Could you just check it is reliable and that the line and stations are all correct. If not please let me know and I can spend time fixing them.

Kind regards

RailwayJG (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

At first glance, this seems unlikely: not only were these stations several miles apart, they were on different lines with no direct connection between them. Following the spellerweb link you give above, it has no mention of Wath North whatsoever, but does mention Doncaster York Road. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: Looking into this more deeply, there seems to be some confusion, partly on your part. In your post above, you refer to Wath North railway station but I cannot see how this is relevant, perhaps you intended this to be Warmsworth railway station.

Our article Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Joint Railway seems to mix up two different lines with slightly different names.

First, the portion shown in yellow on this junction diagram was the central of three sections of the Rotherham, Maltby & Laughton Railway. This was authorised on 4 August 1905, the central section was placed in the newly-created Great Central and Hull & Barnsley Joint Committee on 20 July 1906, which became the Great Central, Hull & Barnsley and Midland Joint Committee on 9 August 1907; the line was completed in 1910 but not brought into use until April 1914. The outer two sections (dashed pink and green) were always Great Central and Midland Joint Committee.

On the same diagram, the line shown going off "to Carlton" from Northern Junction is the Gowdall & Braithwell Railway; this was originally to be a part of the Hull & Barnsley Railway, but in 1910 the unbuilt line was transferred to a newly-created Hull & Barnsley and Great Central Joint Committee (note the different order of names compared to the previous entity). Construction began in 1911 and was completed in 1916 - being under construction at the time the diagram was prepared, it is shown dashed pink/purple/white/white. This line had five stations (including Doncaster (York Road) and Warmsworth), all built for passengers and goods - but no timetabled passenger service was ever operated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RedRose64 that's cleared it up a bit more. Funny there was two Hull and Barnsley Railway companies at the time. Wath North was only mentioned as I think it was the terminus of a branch line from the Hull and Barnsley Line hence why I mentioned it. Guess it was two different lines as you mentioned. Thanks anyway for looking into it.

Regards

- User:RailwayJG:RailwayJG, 15 January 2021, 7:57am (UTC) RailwayJG (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There was only one Hull & Barnsley Railway, but it had shares in several joint lines. The H&B station at Wath was not Wath North, but was named simply Wath for the whole of its life (1902-29), it was the terminus of the H&B line from Wrangbrook Junction (see RJD 44). Wath had three stations, on three different lines: of the other two, Wath North is the BR name for the Midland Railway's station (named successively Wath; Wath and Bolton; Wath-on-Dearne; Wath North); Wath Central is the BR name for the former Great Central station (named successively Wath; Wath-on-Dearne; Wath Central). None of these three were on a joint line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What about the Great Central Joint Line. Wasn't that part of the railway network of the Barnsley and Hull Railway. It was Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Joint Railway? Wasn't that also part of it. Might be mixed up on it. Makes the Great Central Main Line and its branches look easy to write up on. I guess given Yorkshire is a large county. It's not surprising the complex map and the map of railways in Lancashire. RailwayJG (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There was no "Barnsley and Hull Railway", nor was there a "Great Central Joint Line" as such; joint lines always had at least two owners. The Great Central Railway co-owned several joint lines in various parts of England, from as far south as Northolt (on the Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway, in which the GCR had a half share) to as far north as Southport (on the Cheshire Lines Committee, in which the GCR had a one-third share). In the Doncaster area alone, the GCR was co-owner of at least six joint railways:

• Great Central, Hull & Barnsley and Midland Joint Committee (one third)
• Great Central and Midland Joint Committee (one half)
• Hull & Barnsley and Great Central Joint Committee (one half)
• South Yorkshire Joint Railway (one fifth)
• Wath Curve Joint Committee (39/67 share, roughly four sevenths)
• West Riding and Grimsby Railway (one half)

A joint railway is part of the network of all of its owners, and trains would be run through from the parent system to the joint line. Some joint lines had, in addition, services that were confined to the joint line; in most cases, these local trains were run by the owning companies, but in a few cases (such as the Cheshire Lines Committee) the joint railway ran its own trains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Doncaster York Road (but none of the others on the line) was open for a short time in September 1919, presumably to handle race traffic for St Leger week. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Redrose, thank you for your message on my talk page, attached to someone else's contribution. I appreciate your interest of course and am happy to explain/agree/disagree but would ask you please to temper your approach as I found your intervention unpleasantly direct in tone. We are all trying to do our best and be assured I am an occasional but interested contributor who welcomes advice and suggestions that are politely made. I will not be watching your talk page as I have not sufficient interest or time. Like you, I am usually busy in real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterstoke1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Winterstoke1: You refer, I presume, to this edit. I posted in that thread because it was directly relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You recently removed a dead link from International Article Number#External links. I don't know how useful it would be—perhaps it's not worth including—but I did find an archive of the dead link. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@DeNoel: It's just a third-party extension for MediaWiki that is no longer available; AFAIK it was never installed on English Wikipedia. At one time its documentation was mirrored to mw:Extension:EAN, which is now mostly blanked: the last version with content is at mw:Special:Permalink/3746389. Since the feature is not longer available (if it ever was), its documentation is not useful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, regarding this Summary

I did not mean to and I am sorry. Not my intent to remove anything other than my previous mistake. But I only looked at the "obvious" duplication of sections, and tried to manually revert what I thought was my unintended addition. Sadly, the change had ACTUALLY been an unintended deletion and an unintended addition. Sigh.

Thank you for undoing my mess, and returning the Notifications for WP Projects section.

Here is the analysis of what happened.

I thought the only edit I did was this, which removed a duplicate section.

Why? I had restarted my computer and the recovered VisualEditor session I had been working on seemed to have the right context. Unfortunately, I must not have done my usual "Review your changes" step, or I should have seen the weird edit.

Here's the weird edit diff which removed Notifications for WP Projects section and appended a duplicate (and revised) How to deal with link rot on "Official Website" section:

03:33, 22 January 2021 (→‎How to deal with link rot on "Official Website": Thanks! DONE)

The previous edit to that was this on

17 January 2021  (→‎How to deal with link rot on "Official Website": new section)

So the recovered session was probably from the 17th of January, but the session recovery on 22 January may have interacted with then current Village pump (technical) page, which would naturally have changed since the start of my original editing session. The recovered session had my changes to the old 17th page which confused either me, or VisualEditor, or both :-)

So for posterity: :-) Here's your notice and correction:

00:10, 23 January 2021‎ Redrose64 talk contribs‎  87,692 bytes +1,319‎  →‎Notifications for WP Projects: Lent, why did you remove this thread contrary to WP:TPO? undothank

My edits which created the problems:

03:52, 22 January 2021‎ Lent talk contribs‎ m  81,381 bytes +262‎  →‎How to deal with link rot on "Official Website": Add LinkToTextFragment highlighting undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
03:39, 22 January 2021‎ Lent talk contribs‎  81,119 bytes −2,574‎  Whoops! Eliminate duplicated section undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
03:33, 22 January 2021‎ Lent talk contribs‎ m  83,693 bytes +1,557‎  →‎How to deal with link rot on "Official Website": Done! undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

and my original section question, quickly answered by PrimeHunter (talk) :

12:39, 17 January 2021‎ Lent talk contribs‎  74,780 bytes +2,469‎  →‎How to deal with link rot on "Official Website": new section undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

Thanks to Redrose64 talk for catching this! Lent (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

An editor keeps removing sourced content on the Moorgate tube crash article, and I don't think they are right to as the information is sourced to the Me, My Dad & Moorgate documentary. I've seen you've edited on the page recently, could you perhaps give me an indication of whether the info is okay to be there or not? 217.137.43.61 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually don't worry now - it's been sorted on the talk page! 217.137.43.61 (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways § Explain this

 – --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, as I have a copy of what you would call number 12, I would have to say "yes" and "no".

The issue here is that there isn't really a satisfactory way of indicating that the magazine is the 12th in volume 99 and the 632nd issue overall. My preference, following academic practice, is to give both numbers, bit Wikipedia citation templates don't really allow for this (unless you find "12 #632" acceptable, which personally I think is just a bit too American). This is not entirely pedantic, because if one is, for example, talking about Vol 2, no 8, this could suggest it is the 8th issue of 12, or 2nd issue of 6 in the volume (depending on what constitutes a volume). Moreover, as I discovered recently, with magazines of a certain vintage, volumes can begin at a fairly arbitrary point in the year, so putting the month before the year when giving the date doesn't necessarily give you all the information required in order to avoid a lengthy online trawl through a document in order to find the desired page, and indeed can be highly misleading!!

I've been pondering how best to get round this problem for a while. Seeing as I have provided the month in this case, it would have been more consistent for me to give the overall issue number, but as far as my thoughts on the matter are concerned, you very much caught me somewhere in the middle of a place called "no good options". Whilst it is obvious here that issue 632 doesn't refer the number in a volume, it would be nice to find a solution that doesn't introduce some degree of ambiguity for all possible values this figure might take, especially if one is referring to a daily newspaper.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC))

@Edwin of Northumbria: Where, in the magazine concerned, does it explicitly give the number 12 as the issue number? It's certainly not on the cover, nor the contents page or at the top of the editorial; the only place that gives the issue number is at the top of the editorial on p. 793, which shows "No. 632 DECEMBER 1953 Vol. 99". We do not invent facts: we report the information that is actually provided. Different publications use different systems, and we should not attempt to force the numbering convention of one publication onto another, there is no "one size fits all" solution. If The Railway Magazine explicity states "No. 632 DECEMBER 1953 Vol. 99" then we use |number=632|date=December 1953|volume=99, no more nor less.

As regards "what constitutes a volume", The Railway Magazine has changed its method a few times.

• Volumes 1 to 85 (1897-1939) were of six issues each, published monthly
• Volumes 86 and 87 (1940-41) were of 12 issues each, also monthly
• Volume 88 (1942) was of eight issues: four being monthly, four being for two months each (i.e. May-June 1942, etc.)
• Volumes 89 to 95 (1943-49) were of six issues each, published every two months
• Volumes 96 to 108 (1950-62) were of 12 issues each, published monthly
• Volume 109 (Jan-Oct 1963) was of ten monthly issues
• Volume 110 (Nov 1963-Dec 1964) was of fourteen monthly issues
• Volumes 111 to 158 (1965-2012) were of 12 issues each, published monthly
• Volume 159 (2013) consisted of thirteen issues, with cover dates January 2013 to December 2013, plus Christmas 2013. This was to get the cover date back in synch with the calendar, because the publication date had been creeping earlier and earlier - without this extra issue, the January 2014 issue would have appeared in late November 2013
• Volumes 160 onward (2014 to date) are of 12 issues each, published monthly

The page numbering has also changed. At first, numbering was continuous throughout a volume; from vol. 138 (1992), each issue has pages numbered from 1 upwards. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

I see you reverted my edits in the lede back to "First Doctor|The Doctor". If you look at the next few serials on Wiki, they say "The First Doctor (William Hartnell) I only had looked a few ahead - The Keys of Marinus, the Aztecs and the Sensorites. I was only altered it to keep it in uniform. The Madras (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Good morning Redrose64 - if you or a talk page stalker could use your wealth of experience to ensure I'm not barking up the wrong tree on my talk page, I'd be appreciative. I don't want to dig myself into a hole I can't get out of. Thanks. Turini2 (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Which thread? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

On my talk page, following my initial message here at the very bottom of the page. Thanks again. Turini2 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean this thread? That's not on your talk page, and moreover, has been removed. I can't comment on a thread that no longer exists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There's also a subsequent 'reply' on my talk page as linked above. Thanks anyway! Turini2 (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, as an uninvolved admin, you're entitled to close the RfC at Talk:President of the Republic of China#RFC, but by just commenting and removing the RfC tag, I think you've muddied the waters. We're at the worst of both worlds now, where the discussion is open and consensus could form, but someone could cry foul at the procedural irregularity. Please consider either formally closing the discussion or restoring the tag. --BDD (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Using WP:RFC for a page move discussion is a procedural irregularity. I'm not stopping discussion from continuing - indeed, discussion is good, that's how we arrive at consensus. If you want more participation, send a neutrally-worded note to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, being careful to respect WP:CANVAS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Can 210.14.97.226 (talk · contribs) please be blocked ASAP for vandalism? CLCStudent (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: I blocked them, for 31 hours. It's not a good idea to message admins individually for such matters, because I might not be on line. In future please use WP:AIV. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I did use AIV, but this user was going rampant. CLCStudent (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, could I ask you to if you have a moment to look into the speedy deletion of the article linked in heading as I made a slight error of mixing up creating a railway article and non railway article. They have not nominated the non rail article of Pinxton and Selston but this one here. I am sure Wikipedia requires the railway station heading in all railway station articles as to say just Pinxton and Selston but not railway station could confuse people with a civil parish, neighbourhood or an area then the actual station. If you could input on it and get the speedy deletion for the latter article then the one with railway station which is linked above. I'd be greatful. Cheers Talk:UserRailwayJG, 13 February 2021, 18:10 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: Having initially created the page at the wrong title - i.e. Pinxton and Selston - you should have fixed this by moving the page to the correct name, instead of then creating a second article at the correct title, i.e. Pinxton and Selston railway station. Also, if you disagree with a speedy deletion tag on an article that you created, you are not permitted to remove the tag yourself (see WP:SPEEDY, fifth paragraph), but should either use the Contest this speedy deletion button to start a discussion on the article's talk page, or contact the editor who placed the tag on their own talk page, i.e. User talk:Joseywales1961. I am not that editor; moreover, I was at work when you posted the above so was in no position to act on it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point me to where in Wikipedia's guidelines it says that if a user adds relevant and important information to an article but makes a formatting error then it gives someone like you the right to undo all their work, instead of spending 2 minutes changing the formatting. If you don't like the way I've done it feel free to change how the section is presented but don't remove useful information because you don't like the formatting. The depot section on the same page is a mess but you didn't opt to remove that! Also no-one seems to have an issue with the Future Services' section on the West Midlands Trains article, which is more badly formatted!

Hstudent (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hstudent: As noted in my edit summary, I reverted your edit because you committed a copyright violation by copypasting content verbatim from this document. The bad formatting was a secondary matter. You have repeated your offence: don't do it again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You added "badly formatted" to the reason for reverting to the previously edited version so I didn't notice the WP:COPYVIO bit. As it is a public consultation and the government have allowed media sources to republish parts of the document. I wasn't aware copying a few bullet points from a 35 page document, which would fall within a fair usage limit, was against Wikipedia guidelines. Also, the entire section was not copied and pasted, only some (but not all) of the bullet points were. So it appears you decided to delete 3 paragraphs of text which I wrote for no reason! Hstudent (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hstudent, (talk page stalker) Nothing is ever lost in Wikipedia. Your work remains in the history unless the copyvio has been revision deleted. Thus, if it is valid and useful, adds value to the ritual end dwell referenced, then you may re-add it with ease. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Redrose 64,

I hope you're surviving ok through these Covid times.

I've just come across this article about "Oxford Old Station", and the line from it to Didcot. I was surprised, because I'd never heard of such a station. But a look at Google Earth shows that there is indeed a plausible route from the bank of the Thames, down what is now Marlborough Road, joining what is now the Oxford-Didcot line just north of what is now Old Abingdon Road. Here is another link. Maproom (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Maproom: It's covered in MacDermot's History of the Great Western Railway and other works. Briefly, the original GWR line ran via Reading, Steventon and Swindon (there were initially no stations between Moulsford and Steventon). A branch to Oxford was opened in 1844; this left the main line at a point now known as Chester Line Junction (and Didcot station was built just east of the junction), it ran to a terminus station in the Grandpont area, with the passenger accomodation at the end of what is now Western Road, and the goods facility to the north of that, on the right (southern) bank of the Thames. In 1850, a single-track line to Banbury was opened; this left the first Oxford line at Millstream Junction and ran via stations at Woodstock Road (later known as Bletchington), Heyford and Aynho. Initially, trains from Oxford to the north ran south from the Grandpont station and reversed at Millsteam Junction, and then ran north to Woodstock Road and beyond. The Banbury line was doubled and extended to Birmingham in 1852, and the present Oxford station opened at the same time, Grandpont then being given over to goods traffic only.

If you look at street maps of the area, in between Marlborough Road and the present railway is a lake - this is artificial, and its southern end is just to the north of Millstream Junction, in the angle between the present and former railway lines. I believe it was originally dug as a gravel pit.

The people preserving the Brunellian building at Culham station have many maps and documents relating to the old line and station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the bot discussion is distracting from the RfC, so I’m bringing here. Re: this question, yes, that’s not a problem. There’s a clearly named RfC page that anyone who is interested in commenting would be able to understand, and the format of the brief and neutral statement on the page was very intentionally thought out. I’m not changing my writing and intentional formatting for a bot. If there’s a problem, it’s with the bot, not with having a well crafted RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: It seems to me that such an important and far-reaching issue as changing the desysop policy must not be given any less publicity than, say, the question of whether Richard "Bigo" Barnett should be on the list of notable people from Gravette (presently the first entry listed at WP:RFC/BIO).

@WhatamIdoing and Legoktm: what can we do about this? Almost every day, a new RfC is raised where the statement is too long for Legobot to process, and it ends up at the bottom of the relevant RfC listing showing only a link, without statement or timestamp. Unless something is done, it can sit there indefinitely. Some of these I fix myself by the judicious insertion of a second signature part-way through the overlong statement; for the others, I ask the filer to add a brief and neutral statement, and they usually comply. The cases where we still have a problematic listing entry after a day or so are very rare - it so happens that there are two right now, and both are at WP:RFC/POLICY. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m just confused about what the issue is here: it’s listed on the page and the description is fairly self-explanatory. They just have to click it. Am I missing something (serious question?) I’ve been doing large policy RfCs for a few years, and the formatting of the initial statement is one of the more important things. I always use the background-> proposal format and they tend to be fairly long. I don’t want to redesign my statement, because it was done that way for a reason. There’s also really not a good place to add a time stamp for a small bit halfway through.

I guess my thought process is that most people don’t find RfCs through that list, and those who do can click on it to see the question, so I’m not seeing it as not being advertised well. If I’m missing something here, I’m open, but it seems minor compared to having an opening statement to the RfC being done well. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Legobot can't process it because it can't identify the end of the statement. That in turn is because it can't find the timestamp. A consequence of that is that it does not know when the RfC began, and therefore cannot calculate when it will end. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, that is an issue. I was just confused because I didn’t see anything wrong with the page you were referencing. Here, does this fix it? I think that’s preferable for the actual RfC format but also might solve the bot problem? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's a valid, parseable timestamp that is close enough to the {{rfc}} tag that it will certainly be detected. But there is no statement: have a look at the last edit to the RfC listing to see what I mean. How about using one of the summary sentences that have been suggested at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Protected edit request on 21 February 2021? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks terrible, but done. The RfC is far enough along now that bad formatting isn’t goi g to make or break it. My suggestion here would be for Legobot not to put the statements in and just list and link to the section if possible. Page stats says most people don’t look at the page anyway, so knowing when the RfC has expired seems to be the main issue. That way people can just put a time stamp after the template rather than having to change what they’ve worked hard to write to conform with the limits of a bot. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Terrible or not, this is a great improvement on this. Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add unfortunately. Redrose64 actually understands how Legobot's RfC task works better than I do. It's on my list of things to fix in my copious free time (GA bot is up currently), but I don't want to make any promises. Legoktm (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I see a discussion was started but MML, ECML, WCML are all capitals - GWML for great Western Main Line isnt yet? I dont have hard feelings one way or another but do feel there should be some sort of consistency imho GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: We shouldn't move pages without discussion if the present name was arrived at as the result of a previous discussion. Looking at the talk page, I find only two discussions relating to the article name: Requested move 9 March 2017 and Capitalisation of title. The page name history is as follows:

• 20:10, 8 April 2004‎ (UTC) Duncharris (talk · contribs) created article at Great Western Main Line
• 17:36, 24 March 2017‎ (UTC) Dane (talk · contribs) moved page to Great Western main line following discussion at Requested move 9 March 2017
• 00:12, 22 March 2020‎ (UTC) SavageKieran (talk · contribs) moved page to Great Western Main Line (GWML) (discussion at Capitalisation of title was entirely after the event)
• 08:03, 22 March 2020‎ (UTC) Redrose64 (talk · contribs) moved page to Great Western main line (rv insufficiently discussed unusual move)
• 04:34, 12 January 2021‎ (UTC) Yh00156 (talk · contribs) moved page to Wikipedia:Great Western Main line (no discussion)
• 09:40, 12 January 2021‎ (UTC) The Bushranger (talk · contribs) moved page to Great Western main line (rv undiscussed move to unusual namespace)

You may start a fresh discussion on that talk page if you like, but I'm not going to move the page until there is consensus to do so. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree. So how do we get consensus? There really should be consistency IMHO. I will do as you suggest and start a discussion on said talk page. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

In reference to this edit, I think I did create the section with a level four heading as desired in this permalink and so don't think I was the one who caused this issue. No problem if it's a crossed wire but let me know if it was my fault as I can't actually identify what went wrong where. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You are right, it was altered from level 4 to level 5 by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). But the problem is that ClueBot III doesn't handle subsections very well, and has a habit of divorcing them from the parent section. This is one reason why we explicitly ask for headings to be level 4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Then the bot needs work. It should not be impossible to nest part 2 of an RfC under part 1 in that list, rather than being forced to confusingly list them as if they're independent RfCs that should be closed separately. This is a case where the scripting tail is wagging the human-editors dog.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not my bot to fix. Indeed, I have asked for it to be fixed before, but was refused - I was told that it was working as designed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Redrose64, while undoing the edit prior to yours on the Kirkby branch line page I also undid one of your edits. I have re-added the fix you made back to the infobox to the article. Thank you --Voello _talk 01:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/PlymValleyRailway/posts/3629386343840534

Why was this removed from the Class 142 page? It's the official PVR page confirming test runs. I see no reason to remove it, it is well known across the railway that 142023 is now at the Plym Valley Railway, it seems yet again another wiki bot busy body is messing around with things they have no idea with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.123.102 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well known by whom? You and your friends? You must show your sources, by which I don't mean Facebook, which is a self-published source. You need to identify a reliable source, and use that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Just an observation: A constant challenge of discussion on a talk page is that one feels compelled to check out the user page; the content and linked topics and even new facets of WP itself are always so fascinating that nothing else gets done for the next few hours. Zatsugaku (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

HI Redrose64 - I've just noticed you removed the RFC tag for a talk section I attached it to. I was trying to get some more editors to provide input on the discussion, so believed that to be appropriate under RFC. Is there another way you would suggest to get more input on the discussion? Happy to go with that, or any other advice, if you have a suggestion. Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: In my edit summary I wrote "WP:RFCNOT, last row". If you follow that link, there is a section headed "What not to use the RfC process for", a table captioned "Alternative processes to RfC", and the last row of that table shows that you have a choice of Moving a page or Requested moves. You may also leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling directing people to the ongoing discussion.

Also, please don't make edits like this - as it showed when you edited the page, This list is updated by Legobot; your edits will be overwritten if you edit this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, in answer to your question as to why { {cite magazine} } is hard to use is that it is not one of the pre-set citation templates in the edit box header. Perhaps it should be as an alternative to journal. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What edit box header? Also, per their documentation, {{cite magazine}} and {{cite journal}} have different purposes, they are for distinct groups of publications. IIRC, somebody did once try to merge them without discussing first, but they were reverted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware they are for different purposes, but journals appears in the drop down list and magazines doesn't. Just suggesting that magazines could usefully be added. You will find them top left of the edit box in the Cite submenu: Templates. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, no drop-down list, no Cite submenu: Templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RefToolbar/2.0; example in the lead image.

There have been at least two requests to add {{cite magazine}} to the RefToolbar:

Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar/Archive 2 § Cite magazine

Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar/Archive 3 § Request for Wikipedia to add the "cite magazine" citation template to RefToolbar

neither successful.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it's a script, probably one of those which I turned off years ago when Firefox got unusably slow when clicking an edit link. Anyway, I raised a thread at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar#Request for Wikipedia to add the "cite magazine" citation template to RefToolbar, 2021. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

HI Redrose64 - I've just noticed you removed the RFC tag for a talk section I attached it to. I was trying to get some more editors to provide input on the discussion, so believed that to be appropriate under RFC. Is there another way you would suggest to get more input on the discussion? Happy to go with that, or any other advice, if you have a suggestion. Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: In my edit summary I wrote "WP:RFCNOT, last row". If you follow that link, there is a section headed "What not to use the RfC process for", a table captioned "Alternative processes to RfC", and the last row of that table shows that you have a choice of Moving a page or Requested moves. You may also leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling directing people to the ongoing discussion.

Also, please don't make edits like this - as it showed when you edited the page, This list is updated by Legobot; your edits will be overwritten if you edit this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, in answer to your question as to why { {cite magazine} } is hard to use is that it is not one of the pre-set citation templates in the edit box header. Perhaps it should be as an alternative to journal. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What edit box header? Also, per their documentation, {{cite magazine}} and {{cite journal}} have different purposes, they are for distinct groups of publications. IIRC, somebody did once try to merge them without discussing first, but they were reverted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware they are for different purposes, but journals appears in the drop down list and magazines doesn't. Just suggesting that magazines could usefully be added. You will find them top left of the edit box in the Cite submenu: Templates. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, no drop-down list, no Cite submenu: Templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RefToolbar/2.0; example in the lead image.

There have been at least two requests to add {{cite magazine}} to the RefToolbar:

Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar/Archive 2 § Cite magazine

Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar/Archive 3 § Request for Wikipedia to add the "cite magazine" citation template to RefToolbar

neither successful.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it's a script, probably one of those which I turned off years ago when Firefox got unusably slow when clicking an edit link. Anyway, I raised a thread at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar#Request for Wikipedia to add the "cite magazine" citation template to RefToolbar, 2021. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

In the past you have commented about my inability to disambiguate stations which use a variety of templates (stn, metro etc) and rather than muck these up again I thought I would ask for your help. On various templates relating to Tyne and Wear there are multiple ambiguous links to various stations:

• Template:Tyne and Wear Metro network
• Template:Railway stations in Tyne and Wear
• Template:Tyne and Wear Metro
• Template:TWM Yellow line RDT
• Template:TWM Green line RDT
• Template:Newcastle-Gateshead RDT
• Template:North Tyneside Loop
• Template:Blyth and Tyne Railway
• Template:Durham Coast Line
• Template:Newcastle & North Shields Railway

You can see the list of templates and stations here. Any help you could give with fixng these would be great.— Rod ^talk 11:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks as if this has been done by User:The Banner.— Rod ^talk 11:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did them all. Maybe not in the most beautiful way, but effective. Strange enough I have been looking where those links to disambiguation pages were coming from, and I failed to find the root. The Banner talk 12:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rodw: You mention "a variety of templates (stn, metro etc)", I'm not sure what these are unless you mean {{stnlnk}} and {{rws}}; the latter is merely a redirect to the former. The documentation should explain its use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

They are the main ones but a few days ago I also struggled with Template:Chongqing Rail Transit Station uses Template:CRTs which calls Template:Station link and the increasing complexity of these can be challenging.— Rod ^talk 08:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Challenging is an understatement. Near impossible to solve comes closer to the truth. And the problems are aggravated due to the unclear or missing documentation about how to solve links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 11:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, at Template:Chongqing Rail Transit Station which are the links to dab pages? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

They were all fixed a few days ago eg this edit by The Banner and at Module:Adjacent stations/Chongqing Rail Transit with this edit by User:Certes who also did this edit to Template:CRT Line 6 to make it all work for readers, with a comment about {{BSsrws}} & {{BSsplit}}. Other problems were "fixed in Template:NCM stations (to mend Line 2 (Nanchang Metro)) and The EXPO Garden Center station". My knowledge of templates, modules etc is too limited to be able to do these and I suspect the complexity may be making it difficult for other editors as well.— Rod ^talk 16:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a guide to navigating some of these templates and modules in WP:Disambiguation pages with links/Guide#Railway stations. Certes (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Redact your recent edit please. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meon Valley Passing loop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meon Valley Passing loop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Thryduulf (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, actioned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the image on your user page. We'd need people like this. Mine are here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

... and today Bach's cantata composed for today, - perhaps listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I just wish to say I’m sorry for stating that Siemens Mobility were the builders for the British Rail Class 332, British Rail Class 333s and British Rail Class 185. I was unaware that at the time those trains were built that Siemens Mobility existed under a different name.

I never ment to rewrite history on theses pages I just thought I was correcting matters by using what I thought was the correct full legal name of the company. Maurice Oly (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I really like your picture[1]. The blue roses are nice too. — Ched (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Redrose64,

I don't mean to bother you with a very mundane task but I came across an article which is really just one large table that has been set up improperly. But I look at codes and %s and my eyes cross. Is there a project page where I could go to get some help? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Which article is this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is embarrassing. What I had seen was this version which was a disaster but now when I look at the page, List of countries with McDonald's restaurants, a day later and see the edit history, I see that it was the target of an edit war and I stumbled into the beginning of it. I should have looked into it more closely and realized that a page this ugly would've already been addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Regarding the first version linked in your post. The worst thing about it is the gross violation of WP:CONTRAST, something that RexxS (talk · contribs) is so passionate about: I'm trying to carry on his good work. As for percent signs, that version seems to have used them for four purposes:

1. as part of the syntax of the linear-gradient() notation (not easy to understand) which sets those coloured stripes - this is no longer present in the article, but if encountered again, it must be shriven with holy fire
2. to set the table column widths as a fraction of the whole table - doing this is not a crime, but is also not always justifiable
3. to set the text font size as a proportion of the "normal" font size for the page - acceptable, provided that you don't go too small (this version used 92% - it computes to 11.6833px which is fine) - also no longer present in the article
4. percent-encoding in URLs (e.g. r%C3%A9seau-maroc for réseau-maroc) - these should be left alone.

Overall, the vandalism seems to have been ongoing for two weeks (if not longer) and more than 200 edits. I've not counted the reverts, but somebody like E789999 (talk · contribs), Kevin L. (talk · contribs) or PhilKnight (talk · contribs) should really have filed a report at WP:AIV and/or WP:RFPP some time ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I remember you did this for me once. Maybe you can tell me how to get it done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Please see User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 27#Request to use part of a photo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No and no. The first because it fails WP:SPS, the second because it throws a HTTP 404. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

How come it works for me the link? I did use Google Chrome.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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

@Boud: Which edit summary? Please use diffs if you wish to discuss a particular edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This shows your edit summary. Sorry, I thought it was obvious, since you edited my note extending the lifetime of the RfC on the Eritrean population estimates. Boud (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that. Here's why: in brief, Legobot will copy the markup of your statement (from the end of the {{rfc}} tag through the first timestamp) to the list of active RfCs.

This shows how the RfC was first shown in the listings: it's in line with WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief and with WP:WRFC#Specificity. After the thirty days, it was automatically removed; it had not changed in the meantime. Then you reactivated the RfC but added your new timestamp (plus a comment) before the statement, which had this effect: people reading the RfC listings are told absolutely nothing about the issue, save for the name of the page where it is occurring.

My edit triggered this amendment. See WP:RFC#Duration insert a current timestamp immediately before the original timestamp of the opening statement and WP:RFC#Restarting an RfC be sure to insert a current timestamp after the RfC statement, and before its original timestamp. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedian Redrose64,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, you made it worse. We do not put comments like that into article text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64:How can it be fixed so the copied info can still be there?--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Do not persist in your repeated restoration of the problematic content. Why are you not discussing on the article's talk page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

@Redrose64: This is interesting. Your edit summary stated "GWR is a TOC, not a rail line; it does not have any third rail trains at all". I can't argue with that, and assume it applies also to OHLE? I would be happy that any reference to track gauge and electrification are removed from the infobox (and rest of the article). The length is probably pertinent as it shows (if it's accurate) the distances the TOC is responsible for providing services on. If you're agreed, I'll move this conversation to the article's talk page and do the necessary on the article. Bazza (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course GWR has OHLE trains, I see them here in Didcot every day. I Like The british Rail Class 483 is disruptively adding factual errors, copyright violations and outright trivia to a variety of articles, and they seriously need to learn what constitutes a reliable source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64:The british rail class 769 are third EMU's here is a link. https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2020/09/01/first-uks-tri-mode-train-will-run-to-gatwick-airport/ https://anonw.com/tag/class-319-flex-class-769-train/ https://www.railmagazine.com/tag/class-769 --I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Bazza misunderstood your edit summary (and initially I did so too because I missed the word "trains" in it) and thought that you were pointing out that the electrification is not a property of the TOC itself but of the railway lines or the vehicles. I can agree with Bazza here but that's another topic. --PhiH (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64 and PhiH: I probably did misunderstand. I know, as well, that GWR has OHLE trains; I had assumed that the infobox parameter about electrification referred to lines, rather than trains which made sense after misunderstanding the edit summary. To clarify for me: does the el(electrification) parameter in Template:Infobox rail company refer to the rolling stock the company operates, or the lines over which it runs services? If the latter, then 750 DC should be included for GWR's services over the North Downs Line; if the former, then should 750 DC be added once British Rail Class 769s have started to be used by GWR? Bazza (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64:,@PhiH:,@Bazza:. The British rail class 769 are now In testing so they are in use with GWR.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

GWR do run over lines that are electrified on the third-rail principle, but they do not make use of that facility. Their services over the North Downs line are diesel. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64:They are in the process of testing the units then they will take over the North Downs Line the testing is over the North Downs Line to the Third Rail shoes and electrics. So I would say to keep.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Where is your reliable source that they are actually in use on passenger service? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Slenderman7676: (because this revert directly concerns material discussed in this section} You restored all three references, which as I pointed out, are all inadmissible for different reasons: (i) the first source describes future events that might happen, not past events that have happened; (ii) the second is a blog, which fails WP:SPS, the third (whilst it threw a HTTP 404 at the time, has been amended) is not a single source but a search results page - there is no text there that directly supports the content of the Wikipedia article. Thus, the material as a whole is also inadmissible because the policy on verifiability has not been met. I ask you to revert your edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

	The Special Barnstar
	This is to show appreciation for aiding me to solve my problem. Celestina007 (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This is either WP:Articles for deletion/Regen power Pty ltd or WP:Village pump (technical)#Could This Be A Glitch? - Thank you anyway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

I don't know which RfC you refer to, because you have not provided any links. The procedure for ending an RfC early is given at WP:RFCEND. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. Here's the RFC I started. And thanks for the link! I just read the RFCEND policy and saw the first point: "1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the rfc template." Given the information in my above post about the details of Viggo Mortensen's life, his Danish citizenship isn't notable to his lede sentence/nationality as he's American born, is most notable there and has lived most of his life outside of Denmark (mainly working and residing in the U.S and other places). Anyways, I've read the post, but I'm not sure if I simply end the RFC with the "closed rfc top/bottom" template with my reasoning, or just simply blank the section, as the page says you remove the RFC template from the talk page? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody else has posted there, you are permitted to blank the whole section per WP:REDACT. But if anybody else posts to the section before you remove it, WP:TPO comes into play, which means that (in general) you can't remove somebody else's post except for certain reasons - making a fair comment in an ongoing RfC would not be one of them. WP:RFCEND#Duration says To end an RfC manually, remove the {{rfc}} template from the talk page. This refers to the portion within and including the pairs of braces, which in this case is {{rfc|bio|media|soc|rfcid=EE33368}} - everything outside these braces should not be removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and the information you've provided! I've removed the section now. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

This has been sorted. Someone at the pt-wiki has helped me. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: In my post I wrote

{{#time:Ymd|20150131 - 1 day}} → 20150130 and {{#time:Ymd|20150131 + 1 day}} → 20150201

Here, {{#time:}} is a parser function that works with dates and times; Ymd is an output format recognised by that function; 20150131 - 1 day is input data for the function. That does not mean to replace the letters Ymd with some figures (presumably a date); the part which may be altered is the bit that says 20150131 - 1 day, where 20150131 is a way of writing 31 January 2015. I guess you mean that you want to manipulate the date 20 April 2021 in some way, but without context (such as a link to the page you are working on) I cannot assist further. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Actually the example was merely a reference to where I got the feeling that you would know about these things. But you are absolutely right that I wanted to manipulate the date. I was trying to add an entry to the submissions list for pages to be merged. I was using FastButtons, so I cannot show you the exact example — or a new example (because I would need to generate a new merger proposal) —, because once saved it is not possible to see the raw code as it displayed before saving. The whole thing is quite unhelpful, with little indication of what must be substituted and what must remain. You can have an idea here. What I find intriguing is the date format, because usually even the inputting is done in DDMMYYYY format, and then the coding is done automatically, but here the input is actually YYYYMMDD (and not YYMMDD, as per template). Also, the editor who fixed it also removed the invisible text, which in all instances where I have seen it used in maintenance requests is usually left as is, sometimes explicitly saying "Do not remove text bla bla bla. But thanks for taking a keen interest. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This will give you the eight-digit string that you need:

{{subst:#time:Ymd|now}}

It yields 20210420 and works on all language versions of Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to revert your addition of a closure request ([2]): I have no idea how I did that. I just meant to edit the commented code at the top of the section, to give better instructions, since I had been confused when I opened my request. Thanks for adding that text back in. —Wingedserif (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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

@WikiVirusC: You made your edit at 02:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC) but set the initiated to 14:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC) which (at that moment) was twelve hours in the future - it has to be fake, there no way it was genuine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That isn't my edit..... this is. All I did was copy the the time from my signature when I previewed my ~~~~ signature. Please stop assuming bad faith. It was a genuine mistake. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay maybe you weren't assuming bad faith, and you just made a mistake too. It seems you @me and fixed my separate mistake instead of the user that did the 12 hour in future timestamp. I know I made a mistake on my comment but it wasn't the one you are referring to here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, yes, sorry about that. There were two requests where the {{initiated}} had been set incorrectly, both by users with names beginning "Wi"; the one with the 12-hour future time was by Wingedserif (talk · contribs) - see thread below. Consider: it's pointless putting the current timestamp into {{initiated}}, because that time can simply be read from the end of the post. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I would have preferred to answer your question at the place where it was started, but that discussion was closed. Hence my reply here. The answer to your direct question is that the editor was engaged in an edit war at the article, as evidenced by these 3 edits [3] [4] [5]. It is my opinion, shared by multiple other editors that the editor in question is choosing to implement one aspect of WP:COMPUNITS (the deprecation of IEC units) while ignoring the requirement to disambiguate. I see that the same editor has started a discussion at WT:COMPUNITS, but (as already remarked by another editor) with an aggressive tone. In my experience, discussions starting that way rarely end happily, which is why I've not yet dipped my toe in the water there. There is also an unwritten rule at WP:MOSNUM that issues receive attention though once they have been debated at multiple articles. Do you think it is appropriate to continue the discussion there? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit war continues. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Oof, it's been a while. I do know that they shouldn't be copypasted from pages like this, that would be a copyvio. Perhaps MarnetteD (talk · contribs) knows. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Should you be reading that?
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

There is MOS:TVPLOT. I haven't followed the changes at MOSTV the way I have MOSFILM over the years so it could well have been rewritten several times. Copying from other sources has become a problem. For example the plot summaries at List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes read the same as the ones used on my Comcast/Infinity menu at times. Though it could be a chicken/egg situation. Regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Happy First Edit Day, Redrose64, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 04:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 18:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Thought I'd caught all those! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi,

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

@Murgatroyd49: I have seen no evidence that any D prefixes were painted over before August 1968, the reason being to avoid duplication with steam locos. Many were not obscured until the whole number was painted out for TOPS renumbering. The E prefixes were definitely retained until the TOPS number was applied to the loco concerned, none of them retained the four figures without the E. If these prefixes had been removed, there would have been duplication with classes 08, 10, 22, 24 and 29. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, confusion on my part, the E numbers ref should have been in parentheses, it was D numbers that were painted out. IIRC the majority of electric locos had cast numbers rather than painted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Although I have seen the odd rare image of green 47s with the D number painted out, it was usually when they were repainted in blue (prior to TOPS renumbering) that they were given the number without the "D". Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

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

@John Maynard Friedman: With very few exceptions, I unwatched all railway station articles last year, when ProcrastinatingReader made it clear that they WP:OWN all railway station infoboxes. I had decided that I wouldn't have time to spare to clean up the mess that would inevitably ensue, which should have become PR's task - but they have made extremely few edits to railway stations. The only serious station editing I've done in recent months was to rescue Llandinam railway station from AfD. I didn't touch the infobox in that one, even if it may contain errors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, no worries, I made an assumption that you watched the stations around Oxford. It is all too easy to end up watching >1000 articles and never do anything else! It didn't occur to me the check the infobox though, so I had better do that now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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

@Ritchie333: This goes back much earlier than RexxS, to the middle of last year. In July 2020, ProcrastinatingReader decided that {{Infobox GB station}} should go, and without the courtesy of even mentioning their idea to any railway-related WikiProject, went straight to TfD. The whole thing was steamrollered through by those who never get involved in articles about British railway stations, taking no heed of those who were using the infobox day upon day. I am still waiting for answers to a number of questions, which ProcrastinatingReader either (i) claims were answered (they weren't); (ii) claims that I never asked; or (iii) has ignored entirely. Before that debacle ProcrastinatingReader had shown absolutely zero interest in railway station articles, and virtually none since. It's pissed me off so much that I've unwatched something like 6,000 pages, having decided that if there are any problems with any article about a British railway station, I really don't care any more and it's up to ProcrastinatingReader to sort it out. If they want to WP:OWN the station templates, they should take proper responsibility. They mess with it, they must clean it up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This has become a textbook case of WP:PRAM, and I don't think it's right that you drag another editor's name through the mud like this. The changes all had consensus. If you don't like it that's your right, but you don't have a right to act as though some great wrong was perpetrated or that the editor acted inappropriately. It's unseemly, doubly so given your status as an administrator, and I think you should stop. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop editing railway articles altogether? Do you really want that? Or stop being absolutely furious about how RexxS was treated? Not a chance. One of our most knowledgeable experts in a number of fields - particularly accessibility - and he is treated like dirt. The shame of it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I'd like for you to stop piling all your woes on ProcrastinatingReader. Why, for example, am I off the hook? I supported the TfD (had in the past, too). I helped with the implementation. I defended PR's conduct, then and now. Plenty of other editors did too. When third parties reviewed the situation, such as that ANI report, no one had a problem. And yet, it's all on PR, as though there are no other editors on this project. I wasn't involved in the RexxS arbitration (which came well after all this anyway, but whatever), but I tend to think the Arbitration Committee bears a good deal more responsibility than the editor who opened the case. No, instead, we have what amounts to a whispering campaign, an administrator accusing an editor of nameless crimes. If you can't forgive PR's conduct (as you see it), then I'd say you two options: seek dispute resolution, or walk away. This third option you're pursuing, in which you are sort of disengaged but also taking potshots, isn't tenable. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Caorongjin: The discussion begins Should the article name be reverted to "Asian American studies" - it's clearly a discussion about whether to rename the page, and the last row at WP:RFCNOT directs you to Moving a page or Requested moves for such cases. Discuss by all means: but not by way of a RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. This is my first time writing a RFC so any guidance would be helpful. As I stated, this was the context of the RFC and has direct implications on the article.

Would you suggest the discussion be better framed: "Should MOS:HYPHEN be updated to drop the hyphen from ethnic groups?" Or should I simply change the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Hyphenating racial identities to a RFC with that statement? — Caorongjin (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It's too early for an RfC. See WP:RFCBEFORE - have all of those suggestions been exhausted? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have discussed this on the MOS talk and raised the query against the move closer, the latter of whom recommended an RFC as one of the options. As such, no local discussion has given a substantial response about the actual query. I don't think any of the bulleted points on WP:RFCBEFORE fit. There is nothing primarily being disputed (hence I have not opened a MR), and is fundamentally about the guidelines of WP:MOS. — Caorongjin (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother, but would you say I have exhausted the suggestions of WP:RFCBEFORE? — Caorongjin (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC should be a process of last resort, when all other methods have failed and there really isn't any other means of sorting a dispute. The issue, as I understand it, is whether or not to hyphenate "Asian American". Will it stop white American cops from killing innocent non-white people? No. Is anybody taking offence at the presence or absence of the hyphen? Not that I can see. Sort out the bigger issues, please, before holding an RfC for what is, to be frank, trivial. There are plenty of badly-sourced BLPs that need sorting out. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I have never made this claim that you are making about anybody killing anybody and, frankly, find it offensive.

I completely disagree with your value statement: the point is that hyphens do offend. That is why every other manual of style has dropped it. — Caorongjin (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Somebody once described Nelson Mandela, in his presence, as "African-American". That is offensive. Please do not post links to pages that fire up JavaScript that causes my browser to run so slowly that I have to crash out the process and reboot. Such links offend me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• unsolicited third opinion from random passerby: Arguing about hyphens, dashes, or other small horizontal lines is generally not worth the effort. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not touching this, mainly because you have not provided any relevant links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Does not the heading of this query, viz. Briton Ferry railway station and the mention in the query of the Wikipedia article about Briton Ferry railway station not suffice? Do the editorial panel of Wikipedia use different logic to normal people and need guidance to understand what a five year old at nursery school could understand?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The heading of this section could be referring to railway stations of Briton Ferry in general terms, particularly since your first sentence refers to three stations (and I am aware of five different stations at Briton Ferry); however the two links originally provided are misleading, since both lead to articles about electoral wards in Wales, and do not mention railway stations at all. I should not have to guess what you are thinking of. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of text are you intending to use these OS maps as sources for? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Mostly to reference the location of the station and give verity to the location of it now...as in help to clarify the station site and any like mills, good sheds, sidings etc that were likely associated with the station. RailwayJG (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

For the location of the station within the surrounding area, yes: you can use scales as small as 1:63360 (one inch to the mile) for that - but 1:250,000 is too small. Regarding goods sheds and similar, it would depend on the scale of the map even more - you would need a larger scale map, something like 1:10560 (six inches to the mile) or better - a 1:63360 map isn't good enough.

One thing that people sometimes try to do is to use OS maps as sources for dates of opening and closure, or for station names. They really aren't any good for either of those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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