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 Signature icon.png 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)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Confused by RFC removalEdit

Hi RedRose, Regarding this edit you made, removing the RFC tag and summing it up by saying "This is a WP:SPLIT matter, not an RfC matter".

I am quite confused by this edit. Turning Point Action already has an article. It was split out prior to the RFC. The contested Turning Point Action content inside has been argued in the talk page section several times as to whether or not it belongs on the TPUSA page. There isn't any consensus being reached by a normal discussion, the consensus is always divided (As you can go see right now there is no clear consensus, its half for & half against). That is why I made the RFC, to get outside editors opinions if content not related to the source article should remain.

How would a WP:Split resolve this issue? MaximusEditor (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Where was the split discussed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why the Split discussion is relevant; The Turning Point Action article was ultimately created after previous discussions on Turning Point USA's talk page regarding the very same issue as the RFC. Does TPAction content that doesn't have anything to do with TPUSA belong on TPUSA's article page? So, no this isn't a WP:SPLIT issue, we are well past that. I don't see how we could discuss a split, when the article you want to discuss being split out has already been created. The problem lays with editors not agreeing what belongs on what page. That is what the RFC addressed. So I need you to clarify what to do now, since you removed the RFC. As it stands the RFC that was downgraded to a talk page discussion is 3 support vs 2 oppose. Editors appear to be ignoring the fact that TPAction has its own page and continue to place non-TPUSA content on the TPUSA page under the TPAction section. Can you please advise on what action to take to get wrongfully published material on a certain page, posted on the page it belongs on? MaximusEditor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Quite trivialEdit

Here, your es suggests I'm not "respecting" ie erroneously trespassing. I find that a needless personalisation (or reproach), leaving the GF sphere. BTW, the edit is trivial. (And while I looked at it once more: probably the blue link is not in place).

Anyway, I'll consider it a minor style habit issue. DePiep (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Changing a single consistent list to a set of three lists that are mutually inconsistent causes accessibility issues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I know, but it was the "respect" part, as described. For example, just linking the MOS in the es would have done: when following I'd learn, when not folllowing -- editor can't be helped. -DePiep (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

WhyEdit

Why the hell did you change my refering to 60009 as ,,she,, to ,,it,, on her page? Don't you know that locomotives are symbolically refer to as ,,females,,? SilverFox60017 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page lurker here) Wikipedia generally refers to all machinery using 'it' and 'they' pronouns, not feminine or masculine pronouns. XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@SilverFox60017: Per my edit summary, this is covered by MOS:GNL. In short: the only inanimate objects for which gendered pronouns may be used are ships (and even that is debatable). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Redrose64 That's not true. Both rail workers and enthusiasts refer to locomotives as females. My English teacher (who came from Britain) confirmed that. SilverFox60017 (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
What these people do is their own business. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, generally accepted by the community: this is not the place to argue that it should be violated. If you want the Wikipedia Manual of Style to be altered, propose it at WT:MOS but you will need to make a very strong case, and be prepared to counter the many points against your proposal that inevitably will be presented. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@XtraJovial Wait, users here refer to a single machine as they?! I can't believe they push this gender nonsense even on inanimate objects? SilverFox60017 (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
You're trying too hard to be offended - he clearly meant "it" (singular) and "they" (plural). Black Kite (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@SilverFox60017: whilst historically machines have been referred to in the feminine (We may also note that the miller, as the sailor when referring to his ship, speaks of his mill as being of the feminine gender : "Ah! She's been a fine old mill in her time." The practice of using the feminine pronoun for ships is immemorial ; it may have arisen, I am told, from the resemblance of a ship in full sail to a graceful woman. - Coles Finch, William (1933). Watermills and Windmills. p. 62.), here on Wikipedia they are generally referred to in the neuter with the noted exception of ships, where it is the article creator's choice of which to use. I suggest that you accept there is WP:CONSENSUS on this issue otherwise you are likely to find yourself blocked. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Music4UonlineEdit

Hi Redrose. Would you be willing to undelete the above article and move it to my userspace? The person who wrote it is a friend of mine, and I figured that I might be able to help them, even 16 years after deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Since it was not deleted following a WP:PROD but as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music4Uonline, I can't do this unilaterally - I would be in breach of WP:ADMINACCT and it would be deleted again as a WP:CSD#G4. You would need to file a WP:DRV. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Righto, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Cite journal/docEdit

Hi. Could you add something to explain what param 'at' is and what it's used for? Is it the English word "at", meaning location, or an abbreviation of something? Thanks. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Cite journal#csdoc_at. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

See alsoEdit

Hi, unless I missed something here MOS:SEEALSO, here MOS:NOTSEEALSO or somewhere else in MOS, I cannot see anything wrong with the See also section in B. Hick and Sons prior to your last 2 edits? Some points could eventually form paragraphs in the main body. Regards Rstory (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rstory: Regarding this edit: the placement of {{Use dmy dates}} is (debatably) among the top matter or among the bottom matter, it certainly doesn't belong anywhere else and is of zero relevance for "See also". Regarding this edit: there should be no reason to use references for the individual entries in "See also". MOS:SEEALSO says Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. - it says nothing at all about adding references. Those belong in the prose of the linked-to article. If you feel that you need to justify the inclusion by using a ref in addition to the permitted annotation, the connection is probably very tenuous indeed. Consider the entry:
there are four links here, there should only need to be one. When I follow each of the last three, I find no mention of Hick at all; and on the Dick, Kerr page, the only mention is in "See also". If Dick, Kerr & Co. used products devised or manufactured by Hick Hargreaves there should at the very least be a passage in one or both of the articles describing them. The reference may go there, as may the links to condenser, English Electric and turbo generator. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry {{Use dmy dates}} was a typo, your correction duly thanked.
I agree, MOS:SEEALSO says nothing about adding references, which is why when I checked it some time ago, I could find no reason not to add references to support the anotations to ensure the links were evidential. It seems my error in good faith is more related to MOS on references and linking, perhaps the guidance on SEEALSO or NOTSEEALSO could be clarified? The links with refs will if I can find a way, be moved into one or other article(s).Rstory (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Advice on WP:BRDEdit

You've previously given some good advice on the above topic.

I would welcome you views about recent edits here: 45 Years

Thank you. Tomintoul (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tomintoul: You asked exactly the same question at User talk:John Maynard Friedman#Advice on WP:BRD, so per WP:MULTI I'll reply there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Redrose64. Did you have any thoughts on the response to your comment I posted on John Maynard? Tomintoul (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I've already called WP:MULTI on this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

SighEdit

[This reply will sound snarkier than is warranted, but I can't resist.]

Please be considerate; not everyone has the faintest idea what the distinction between WP:CS1 and WP:CS2 is, so you shouldn't blindly revert well-meaning edits and in so doing reintroduce the citation errors which the underinformed prior editor was clumsily attempting to correct. —scs (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Scs: the curious thing about that article is that whilst four references come from the same website (Railways Archive), they all use different templates - {{cite web}}, {{Cite document}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}}. Each of them links to a PDF of an accident report, these reports are definitely not journals and whilst one has an ISBN, they're not really books in the accepted sense. Although all could be seen as web sources, that's not how they were originally published so perhaps {{cite report}} would be best. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DENY & tagging userpagesEdit

Hello Redrose, I think we are now well beyond the point of WP:DENY in regards to this LTA; tagging each new sock seems unnecessary. Unless you are doing it for tracking purposes, which is fine, but maybe we should avoid creating pages for potentially BLP-violating usernames such as this or this. Sro23 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sro23: I'm building a profile of their typical editing habits. Whilst edits like this are frequent, they have several other MOs. If I can identify patterns, I can spot these in recent changes and confirm by checking back through other (suspected) socks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, that's fine. However this LTA frequently uses accounts with BLP violations right in the usernames, so maybe for those specific socks we want to avoid tagging, in the spirit of WP:HNE and DENY. Sro23 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for fixing my template parameter typo in WP:ANRFC, I've been away for a while so I'm a bit rusty. Anyways, hope you've had an enjoyable summer and a good rest of the week :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 21:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Musical Theatre WestEdit

Hi! re this edit, I think that's an AfC issue. Or maybe the script? I'm guessing it offered the suggestion automagically, although I can't work out how/where I could have previewed. Either way, thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 17:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: It's not in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/WikiProject templates.json, and hasn't been since this edit six months ago. Therefore it shouldn't have been offered for selection on 17 May 2022. Do you run a local copy of the script? If so, it probably needs updating. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so? Guessing no since I'm not sure what that would entail. File it under gremlins and will check TPs after creation to make sure no others come for a visit. Star Mississippi 19:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Inferno (starring ... removed)Edit

Hello Redrose64, you've forgotten to remove two starring actors...   On the other hand I would not have removed them because it really makes it easier to distinguish the films: recently I'd been watching the Inferno film with Tom Hanks and wanted to know more about the film but the the disambiguation page does not give any hint which of the Infernos could be the one I should read - worst case would be to click on all of the links to find the one you'd like to read about. And IMHO it does not hurt to leave the starring info as it was... ;) --katpatuka (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation page, the general rule for which is that you only have one blue link for each entry, see MOS:DABENTRY. If the director is mentioned, it shouldn't also be necessary to mention who appears in the film (starring or otherwise), see MOS:DABSHORT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees electionEdit

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Indian Railways linesEdit

 Template:Indian Railways lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for cleaning up after me! Your edit summary[1] was very informative, I wasn't aware that adding multiple RfC at the same time was special as I'd never had to do it before. Thanks again! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're welcome! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)