User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 18

Redhill to Tonbridge Line
Despite massive opposition at the first RM, Dicklyon sneaked in a second RM just days later, and we've now go a dashed, non-capitalised title for the Redhill to Tonbridge Line article. There is also another mass-RM request running (notice posted at WT:UKT). This is getting well beyond WP:DISRUPTIVE now. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Was this RM not advertised, posted, and discussed enough  on the project talk page and other places?  What are you saying about "sneaked"?  And where is this opposition you refer to? Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Call me suspicious but I am beginning to think you are playing a game. The world and his neighbour knows that hyphens were never, used when referring to these lines. It is interesting to see you plotting more disruption on  Stanton's talk page. All this rubbish will have to reverted eventually- would you like to start now, as this is a great timewaster for all of us. As I said before, I would love to have a face to face chat over a beer when you make a site visit to Kent, or Derbyshire. But you have been rumbled- I have a lot more to do- please don't get yourself topic banned before you have ad a chance to visit.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I enjoyed the beer and whisky at the White Lion in Tenterden last time I was around there; didn't quite make it to Tonbridge, nearly an hour away. Nothing about hyphens is going on here, though (though some books may use a hyphen to represent the role of the en dash; and some that look like hyphen in the GBS snippets really are dashes,  like this one and this one and this one). Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * it can be arranged. There's a meetup in London this coming Sunday; has signed up, I'll be there, and  has also said yes. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry; maybe in Aug/Sept I'll be in your part of the world next. Dicklyon (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I wont by at the August one- but do let us know when you are over- a get together is a must. I fell for the puzzles you posted- and all the examples actually referred to the same piece of track but in different contexts, which makes it so important that you get the capitalisation and hyphenation right. Since you messed around with the Glossop Line, I have been looking carefully at how different printed sources tackle the problem. We are not the only ones to get it wrong.
 * Generally in the title case (of a book, magazine, Hansard legal document) it is all upcapped and hyphen free, but when in that book, the piece of track between two station is mentioned, then (and I assume it is correct) the word line is down capped and hyphens may be introduced. I have seen a lot of inconsistences within single paragraphs - where the sub-ed was not just confused but lazy. But no source seems to get that right- but we can.
 * In our article tiles we must upcap, route templates too, and within the templates upcapping individual lines. For chords mentioned in the article downcapping may be correct- but the official name of the chord should be considered to be a title. Within a wikitable the hyphen may replace the word and, or to. The Glossop Line was particularly difficult to get right referring as it does to the remaining western section of the Woodhead Line, but terminating in Glossop. The chord between Dinting and Glossop is the Glossop line (down capped), the chord between Glosssop and Hadfield being the Glossop and Hadfield Line (upcapped or down capped depending on context). Here a hyphen would mean 'and' not 'to'.
 * A lot of the matches in you puzzle rely on a single publisher, Oakwood Press from around 1947. I find they style contrary to the conventions at the time- it worked for them, but I can't reconcile myself with the idea that the decision of one editor should be a binding precedent for us. The thought of a line of beer pumps however beckons.... too bad that it wont be till September that we can test each one of them out.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Clem, I'm having trouble following your train of thought here. You have read WP:NCCAPS, right?  We would generally not do our article titles any differently from the same terms in text (except for the initial cap, as in starting a sentence).  I agree that when other take a term and make a title of it they do tend to capitalize most or all of the words, and do tend to omit hyphens that they would have used in text; but Wikipedia doesn't do that.  And that thing you're calling a hyphen between places is an en dash. Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this one. Having difficulty with my line of thought? I suppose if you haven't been wrestling with this problem since 2007, then you would have a bit of catching up to do. Going back to Mandrusses last edit Naming_conventions_(capitalization) January 2016 WP:NCCAPS you will see that we take authority from Fowlers 3rd edition. In the paragraph on capitals (p=128) section 2, in my edition,  we see quite clearly Parts of recognised should be capitalised- and examples are given of Addison Walk (In Magdelen College Oxford), Regent Street, London Road (if official name) but the London road (thats leading to London). Elsewhere I ave given examples of the Suez Canal, the Kiel Canal, the Panama Canal. You really are going out on a limb to suggest that the Glossop Line, a similar linear geographical feature is qualitatively different. I wish I could give you some further guidance but online sources are likes hens teeth and when you find one it is littered with errors, or uses the two forms (official name)& (leading to) many times in the same text often contradicting Fowler. That's where we started ten years ago- and all that seems to have changed is the WP:NCCAPS is less clear and no longer names its sources. ClemRutter (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still not following. What Mandruss edit?  What does Fowler have to do with this?  And what about the clear consistent capitalization of those canals in sources, very unlike the lines? We are not in the business of making up proper names (or shouldn't be, though in the UK rail lines we have been). Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just follow the link ! Mandruss's last edit on Naming_conventions_(capitalization) January 2016.:-)  ClemRutter (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I had done so, but it wasn't a diff. I suppose you mean this.  Not clear to me what difference it makes; care to elaborate? Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are playing games again. Stay on focus, just follow the link ! Mandruss's last edit on Naming_conventions_(capitalization) January 2016- now read throroughly the lead- and particularly paragraph 4. You asked me directly whether I had read Just follow the link !  WP:NCCAPS- yes I have, many times- I have directed you back to a safe version as the current version is less clear and no longer names its sources. ClemRutter (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Davidson
Hi there, in April 2015, you removed my edit on Ruth Davidson's page regarding her breaking her back during Officer Training. I was her training officer at the time and thus know very well that she received her injury at the Army officer Selection Board at Westbury not at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst at Camberley. The issue is that I cannot provide a citation for this as it would be inappropriate and not possible to provide her medical documentation. I could however provide a link to AOSB at Westbury? The problem is that Conservative political materials are cited which are inaccurate. Do you think I can edit and cite a link to Westbury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenith69uk (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I made three edits to that article in April 2015, all were reverts - the edits that I reverted were made at: ; ; and . All three of these edits removed sourced content together with its source, replacing it with unsourced content; my reverts restored the status quo. Edit summaries like "this is a personal record in can be referenced but if Ms Davidson's office needs to chat then its Maj Davidson editing" and "A source cannot be supplied from the public domain. Ms Davidson did not attend RMAS as she injured herself during assessment." do not satisfy the core content policy of verifiability (please note the phrase "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material"). I have challenged it: it is now up to you to provide a satisfactory source. Moreover, any edit of that nature must not just satisfy the verifiability policy, but also another core content policy, that of no original research; together with the policy on living persons.
 * By AOSB, I assume that you mean the Army Officer Selection Board, so when you say "a link to AOSB at Westbury" what would that link be? If it does not go directly to a page which explicitly mentions the injury, it is unlikely to be acceptable as a source. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

speedy review
Hi dear Admin. please check and review this user editions

all of his editions are vandalism like this or this or this or change or delete paragraphs, numbers or words in articles

also he delete all notifications in his talk page like this

thank you Modern Sciences (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way do those edits count as vandalism? This is a content dispute; so have these changes been discussed at the talk pages of the articles (Talk:Shusha massacre; Talk:Karabakh horse; Talk:Shelling of Stepanakert respectively)? If not, why not? Also, removing notices from a user's own talk page is not a crime. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I menthined only some example of this user not all of them,
 * For example deleting context that have sources is not vandalism this act starrt from this edition or deleting context that have resources and replacing with ???
 * this is clearly vandalism, user clear one language from article lead???Modern Sciences (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism, since as correctly states, the number of fatalities is covered in the article text, in the Casualties section. There should not be that level of detail in the infobox, which is for summarising key points of the article. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

High Speed Train?
In this revert, is it the case, or the hyphen, or both? What's the basis for the proper-name treatment of High Speed Train here? Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * High Speed Train is the expansion of the acronym HST, and has been capitalised that way for over forty years. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see lots of places where it's capped in defining the acronym HST; but not much otherwise. We don't usually cap things just for acronym definition, and I don't find evidence in sources that High Speed Train stands alone as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See news and books, where lowercase hyphenated is pretty common, and caps without the defining of HST is not. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many types of high-speed train (which redirects to High-speed rail), whereas High Speed Train refers to the specific class of British train (redirecting to InterCity 125). --David Biddulph (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I see it redirects there, and that's the intended meaning when it's capped. But I still don't see why it's capped, as it does not appear to be a proper name, except perhaps in the context of High Speed Train Project, which appears to be where this comes from. Shouldn't we just link Intercity 125 when that's what we mean, and downcase it otherwise? Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As David Biddulph points out, the difference is between the generic and the specific. There is a good example of the distinction in
 * where on page 149 we find "There was one glimmer of hope on the horizon, this being the advent of the High Speed Train project. Now that running of trains at speeds up to 100 mph was becoming commonplace and, with the increasing competition from the airlines, the case for a frequent high-speed train service became paramount." When you have two power cars [locomotives] flanking up to nine Mark 3 coaches, that is a High Speed Train, and that is how British Rail referred to them in most documents (in the early days of the project, it was High Speed Diesel Train). The term "Inter-City 125" (capitalised and hyphenated thus) was a slogan thought up by BR's marketing team for use on the High Speed Train, and painted on the sides in the early years; it is not the name of the type of train.  has carried out much research on the matter, having lived within cycling distance of Derby Public Library for some years. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've got half a bookshelf dedicated to the HST. It's one of those articles I've been meaning to overhaul for years (and it certainly needs it!), and it's always annoyed me that the article is titled IC125 rather than HST. But regardless, High Speed Train is its name. The name (unhyphenated, with caps) doesn't refer to trains travelling at high speed in general but to this particular train. It's as much a proper noun as ... St Paul's Cathedral. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting that Chacksfield has "High Speed Train project". Most books cap Project in that context (except for one about the California project, oddly). Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I do see a few with a better search, though lowercase and all-uppercase and various hyphenated all make good showings, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that the only other place in the Chacksfield book to use the phrase has it in "prototype High Speed train (HST)" with the lowercase train (in the Foreword, p. 4). I'd like to know what some of those other books do. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that the only other place in the Chacksfield book to use the phrase has it in "prototype High Speed train (HST)" with the lowercase train (in the Foreword, p. 4). I'd like to know what some of those other books do. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Just one more of these inane and deliberately provoking moves or renames and I will raise another thread at ANI, seeking a specific topic ban to prevent you from making any more. Your behaviour here is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? Did I move or rename anything? Am I not allowed even a modestly bold edit now and again? Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not when your renames are:
 * Simplistic and slavish enforcements of a standardised styleguide
 * Ignorant of any subject knowledge
 * Obviously contentious, given your past track record with the scope of this (and maybe other) projects.
 * A certain amount of ignorance for specific narrow subjects is always expected and excusable, but a wiser editor might see that as a reason for caution. You evidently do not, and you have had it made clearly obvious how much you have annoyed project members who do have some familiarity with the subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't do any renames. Is bypassing a redirect all that objectionable now?  Did I get contentious about it when it was reverted? No and no. And I wasn't ignorant; I had already seen that sources speak of a High Speed Train Project and commonly define the acronym HST with High Speed Train. Perhaps I'm ignorant of why people still want to cap High Speed Train on its own, which sources don't much. Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a diff at the top of the section: you replaced High Speed Train with high-speed train. Then when you were reverted over that, you went on to start renaming things altogether. Seemingly you have a compulsion to make changes; any changes, just to annoy other editors. Or else you went immediately from not even recognising a HST as one specific form of "train at high speed", through to making value judgements as to whether IC125 or HST is the better term, against project members who do have such knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you can't accept my edits for what they are, and have to take them as attacks on your person. Get over that.  It's not about you. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And yes I still have a hard time accepting that "A High Speed Train ..." can be accepted as correct (because "A" before a proper name seldom is), but I'm not warring about it, am I? Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A Land Rover, a Boeing, a Cadillac, ...? --David Biddulph (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, people do put "A" before trademarks, even though it's not strictly correct. "A High Speed Train train" would be more correct, but I can see why we wouldn't go there (while "an HST train" is perfectly common). Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For example, see that most web hits are either lowercase or are associated with defining HST (the exception being this highly-specialized HST group). Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"rfc top" and "rfc bottom"
Shall I or you address the "rfcid" bot issue with template:rfc top and template:rfc bottom to WP:VPT? --George Ho (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that the rfcid parameter is being added to templates that don't have any use for it (if that were all that was happening then it would be harmless), but that is assuming that the five-character sequence "&#x7b;&#x7b;rfc" indicates the start of an open RfC discussion. That bot, like almost all other bots, is outside everybody's control except for its botop. In this case the botop is, upon whom we're dependent for a fix. There is nothing that VPT can do other than analyse the problem, which I have been doing for about a year now. I have explained the problem, at length, on various talk pages: most recently at User talk:Legoktm. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Okay. I'll use the "closed rfc top/bottom" for now until the bot matter is resolved. Also, I know what you mean, especially by rereading Template talk:Rfc top. And would substituting be effective? George Ho (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Substing works, but bloats up the page unnecessarily, by a minimum of 983 bytes just to prevent a bot problem. Using the redirects adds just fourteen bytes, prevents the bot problem and is meaningful. In fact, not only is no meaning lost, but the presence of the word "closed" makes it even more clear that discussion is over. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We agree to disagree about the substituting. However, sometimes I think substituting would also prevent potential vandalism and reduce technical issues with the template during transclusion. But what do you think I should do: subst or "closed rfc top"? George Ho (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Userboxes
Hi

Sorry that my edit to your userpage didn't produce such neat output.

I did it because babelbox categorises you in the non-existent Category:User simple-2>. It was a redkink until I later created the category redirect, so it no longer shows up as a redlink ... but retaining babelbox for this means that you will be a categorised in a category which people cannot navigate to. That doesn't seem much use, but up to you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds rather like a claim to uniqueness then :D  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  17:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You can format your userboxes in a block as a section at the end if regular column formatting does not suffice. However, it should be carefully placed the boxes. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I know how to lay out userboxes, thank you. I have been doing that for well over seven years now, and I want them to be in the positions that I placed them in. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that I have created Category:User simple-2, the category no longer clutters up the redlinked category lists. But it's still wrong that the userpage is permanently categorised in a redirect. That doesn't impede cleanup, so I will leave it be ... but I am bemused by the contrast between RedRose64's determination to reinstate this error, and their very reproachful tone whenever any of my edits inadvertently cause an error. It would be nice to see that gap closing. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All I want to do is use  in the manner advised by its documentation. The #babel: system was designed to work in the same manner across all Wikipedias, with no local variation, since that would lead to confusion "why does this work at French Wikipedia but not at English?". If there is perceived to be incorrect categorisation as a result of using the documented syntax, then the categories should be fixed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be usable consistently as you say, but a) its makes no sense on any wikipedia to have multiple levels of "simple", and b) it isn't usable that way.
 * I had thought that it was a module which could be changed, but had been unable to locate it. Thanks for the pointer to the extension, which ends y confusion about where the code is.
 * After a little more burrowing, I found the original UCFD discussion, but also this later discussion: WP:CFD 2012 January 9.
 * That second discussion helpfully points to a Phabricator report, where the discussion seems to have come down to the "devs say fix your bots", and nobody following through with the bot owners, and the devs paying no attention to the underlying point that multiple levels of simple is simply unhelpful. That Phabricator discussion seems to have stalled in January 2012, so it's clearly going nowhere.
 * Oh well. I will re-create the categories, and start a CFD on whether to just give up on any chance of the underlying issue being resolved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On seconds thoughts, sod it. I will just leave it as a populated redirect. If someone else wants to fix it, that's fine. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks [Bradshaw's Guide to Victoria (Australia)]
Dear Redrose 64,

Thanks for making these modifications for me.

Actually, I'd just worked out that I had accidentally placed a full stop at the end of the heading and that that was what was causing me a few problems. I was just about to remove it when I noticed that, kindly, you had already done it.

Regards, Albert Isaacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Isaacs (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:MOVE. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Liverpool Street
Quick question, does this crop of edits violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say so. We don't need every little variant; for a station as intensively used as Liverpool Street, anything less frequent than once per hour shouldn't really be included. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Length of Corris Railway
You may be interested in commenting at the discussion on my talk page (or moving the discussion to a more central location). Optimist on the run (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sig
Hello red🌹 (how clever is that!) Can you take a look at the signature currently in use here? I was thinking especially that thing you do to it which shows how it appears to the partially-sighted. Since a load of it seems to be missing! Cheers &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  10:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your link has two terms specifying NaN, so it's defaulting to the most recent edit to that page, and so I'm unsure if you refer to the signature used by or not. Assuming that you do, white text on black is absolutely fine, with its 21:1 contrast ratio, but red on black has a contrast ratio of 5.25:1 which makes it AA Compliant, where we aim (as stated at MOS:CONTRAST, "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible.") for AAA compliance, which would be a ratio of 7.0:1. Levdr1lp can obtain that whilst retaining the red hue and black background by reducing the saturation, and using the colour #FF5E5E which gives a contrast ratio of 7.01:1 and would look like this:  Levdr1 lp
 * However, there is also a problem with the " talk  " part - it's a link, but it's black (on a pale background). There is no contrast problem here, but it fails something else shown at MOS:CONTRAST, that is, "Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers." which this isn't. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , Redrose64- Thank you for bringing these issues to my attention. Just so I'm clear, I need to: 1) change the red color text to a color w/ a higher contrast ratio (greater than 7.01:1) against the black background; and 2) and make sure the talk link is clearly visible as a link.  Do I have that right?  I had a similar problem a few years ago when my signature markup used shortened hex color codes (3-character instead of 6-character).  I thought I had addressed any readability/accessibility issues back then; I hope additional problems haven't persisted since then.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  22:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , Redrose64- I've updated my signature. I've substituted orange text in for the red, which raises the contrast ratio against the black background to 8.25:1, and I've added parentheses around the talk link. Are these changes sufficient?   Levdr1 lp  / ( talk ) 22:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, regarding the talk link, could I underline "talk" w/o parentheses?  Levdr1 lp  /  talk   22:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The requirement is not "greater than 7.01:1"; it is greater than or equal to 7.0:1, so exactly 7 is acceptable. The reason that I specified a colour value of #FF5E5E (which has a contrast ratio of 7.01:1) was that if I decrease both the green and blue components of that by the minimum possible, i.e. one unit of brightness (on a scale of 0-255 or 00-FF hex), it gives a colour value of #FF5D5D (which has a contrast ratio of 6.98:1). It's not possible, with a black background and a pure (0°) red hue at maximum lightness, to get a contrast ratio of 7.0:1 exactly, even though that would be our minimum.
 * Parentheses do not conventionally identify a link, and nor does an underline. The colour should be different from the plain text; and since plain text is black, links should not be black. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for mixing up all acceptable AAA compliance ratios (greater than or equal to 7.0:1), and the specific contrast ratio for the reddish color #FF5E5E against a black background (7.01:1). And I was looking at your own signature's talk page link above when I thought to ask about black-colored links, forgetting that this is, in fact, your talk page (meaning the link appears black & bold here by default).  My mistake.  Back to my signature, is the following acceptable (user page link orange-on-black contrast ratio of 8.34:1, and talk page link red-on-default-white contrast ratio of 7.04:1)?   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  00:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the contrast ratio of link color need to be AAA compliant with plain (black) text even though links & plain text are separated by the default-white background?  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  01:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, after some tweaking, I think I've created a signature which better complies w/ MOS:CONTRAST. Is this version acceptable?  --->   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes; the contrast is excellent - well within AAA. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference?
Hello R. I am trying to fix the italics in the DAB title of various Dr Who classic series articles. I found that some display as Title (Doctor Who) and some as Title (Doctor Who). When I added the "Display title" template to The Chase it worked fine. But when I tried to do the same thing on The Reign of Terror and The Rescue it didn't. I am guessing that there is something technical that I am missing so I'm banking on your expertise to steer me in the right direction. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles were in . Part way down each article, in the "In print" section, the message Warning: Display title "&lt;i&gt;The Reign of Terror&lt;/i&gt; (Doctor Who)" overrides earlier display title "&lt;i&gt;The Reign of Terror&lt;/i&gt; (&lt;i&gt;Doctor Who&lt;/i&gt;)". was showing. You can only have one per article, so if there's one elsewhere (in this case, tucked away in the infobox adjacent to that error message), you need to suppress it. As noted in the second box at the top of, the fix is to add no to that infobox. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you R. I always appreciate the time you take to explain things in detail. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again. The Invasion (Doctor Who) has both a book and a soundtrack subsection. I added the "italic title no" command to both but the red "warning" message still appeared in the soundtrack section. So I removed that "display title" template until you have a chance to look at things. Thanks in advance for looking into this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Same thing really. If you look at the, there is the error message Warning: Display title "&lt;i&gt;The Invasion&lt;/i&gt; (Doctor Who)" overrides earlier display title "&lt;i&gt;The Invasion&lt;/i&gt; (&lt;i&gt;Doctor Who&lt;/i&gt;)". . In that section of the current version, edit the section (in proper editor, not with VE) and go straight for , you will see the message Warning: Page using Template:Infobox album with unknown parameter "italic title" (this message is shown only in preview). If you click that link, you'll see that the doc suggests no -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I had added that with this edit but it turns out that it needed a capital "I" - tricky devil :-) I wonder if it is worth taking the time to try and make them uniform. At least I know the diff for future reference. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Unusual user
Dear Redrose64, I'm sorry to dump you with this but I fear it might be an old friend of yours. This user came to my attention because of an unusual "warning" message that they left for another editor. I wish I'd just ignored it now - it soon became clear that this was not some new innocent user who doesn't quite "get" it. Even just looking at the history of this particular thing (GWR logo in or out of Night Riviera article, threats of "reporting to the moderators", general rudeness etc) I realized that it was almost certainly the same person here and here. Sadly this looks, again on similar behaviours and the continuation of conversations or accusations across accounts, as if it is possibly the blocked user and sockpuppeteer User:Devonexpressbus who I see you have had previous and no doubt very rewarding engagements with. Whether you want to do something with this I leave entirely up to you - that's why they pay you the huge Administrators' Salary after all - but I want nothing more to do with this guy. In a way, I can see a benefit to just leaving him alone and letting him plug away in his own little plastic bubble. I just felt a bit caught out that I approached him as a kind of normal inexperienced editor when I could have done with a health warning sign that said "do not tangle with this well-established [noun of your choice] - it's not worth it". It's the usual two-rules debate, I suppose. Ho hum and thanks, DBaK (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... I have to go out to work in about 20 minutes, and won't be back until about 20:30. Then it's dinner, TV and bed; up again at 06:30 because I have to leave at 07:10. You could file a report at Sockpuppet investigations/Devonexpressbus. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries at all: enjoy your days. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wish him much joy with it, but I'm jolly glad it's not me ... best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that this user is back here with the usual threats and abuse. He reported at AIV and has been told to try ANI instead. Geeuuare has done absolutely nothing wrong, let alone anything within a mile of vandalism. It's all a bit depressing. DBaK (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * (Trying again for DBaK (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Rating articles
Hello, Redrose64 - I've been watching the article on Ferdowsi, and the back-and-forth between two editors, and one of them just made  edit. Can just anyone change the rating of an article like that? – Corinne (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically yes: the importance ratings are decided by each WikiProject for that WikiProject, and for WikiProject Iran, the guide is at WikiProject Iran/Assessment (there is a virtually-identical copy at Template:WikiProject Iran). It might be that Ferdowsi (apparently a poet who lived a thousand years ago) is one of the core topics about Iran - I don't know. You could leave a request at WikiProject Iran/Assessment.
 * However, some people are under the misapprehension that what is important to them (like the latest group of teenage vocalists) is necessarily of importance to Wikipedia. So one of your two might be studying Ferdowsi for an academic qualification. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Redrose64. I understand. In this case, Ferdowsi is one of the leading poets in Persian literature. It just seemed to me, because of the edit summary ("It's just quite obvious"), that the change hadn't been done as a result of consensus or statistics or any other criteria. However, since the topic probably merits a top rating, I'll just leave it. – Corinne (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

WCML template deleted
It appears that the template that was being used on the West Coast Main Line article has been deleted for some unknown reason and been replaced by the core route only one, despite a complete lack of consensus to do this on the discussion page. Surely this flies against all due processes of wikipedia. Can you use your admin powers to undelete it. Pending a proper discussion. Users can't just force their preferred views when they have no consensus. G-13114 (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it - per WP:DELETE, you should initially discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, on their talk page. Judging by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Template%3AWest+Coast+Main+Line the page logs], it was deleted by because "All meet G7", by which I get the impression that RickinBaltimore felt that WP:CSD was applicable. I have looked at the page history, and the last edit prior to deletion was the removal of all content and its replacement with the template  by  at 13:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC). Since Pldx1 was not the page creator, the G7 criterion was clearly not applicable; more so because Pldx1 was not even a contributor of any kind, their only edit to the page being to blank it and add that template. Have you asked RickinBaltimore why they felt that G7 was applicable here? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have deleted a large number of files that were in my own user space. I have absolutely no idea about the reason why the West Coast Main Line template has been deleted as a result of this process. In any case, I can only apologize for any error that I could have done. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh boy. Yeah that is definitely a mistake on my part. There was a large group of articles tagged for G7, and I removed them in a batch. Unfortunately that was mixed up. I'm going to restore it right now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that's what I call doing a Beeching on the WCML! :D &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  13:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okehampton, Crediton & Exeter Railway
Just a quick heads up, I declined the A7 because we can probably turn this into an article about the proposed line, moving it away from any business interests, or merging it with London and South Western Railway or whatever the most appropriate article is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Judging by your edit summary, you on the grounds that "A7 does not apply to railways" - but the article is about an organisation, and WP:CSD specifies three times that it applies to organisations ("people, animals, organizations, web content, events"; "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event"; "web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals"). There is an exception for educational institutions, but not for railways. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I got confused - I know you can't get a "regular" train to Okehampton, and the lack of network redundancy between Exeter and Plymouth can be problematic. However, it takes a lot of ground work to be a railway operator, and I wondered if we could reappropriate the article for something else. Certainly a railway line (ie: the tracks and sleepers) does not meet A7 in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Deprecated latitude= and longitude= in UK disused station infobox
Re: this diff, and you asked where it says that they're deprecated: Coordinates in infoboxes makes it clear that In August 2016, an RfC established that the individual named coordinates-related parameters in infoboxes (latd or lat_d, etc.) should be deprecated in favor of coordinates. Below, it states that The names of the deprecated parameters vary between templates but often include many of the following... Latitude and longitude are included in the bulleted list. In the tracking section you may notice that, within the table, is included. So, although just including the numbers would be immediately easier (and I agree with you, there), coordinates is now the standard. Regards, EP111 (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's Bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, revert. You should at least give me a chance to respond. I am putting together a thread at Wikipedia talk:Coordinates in infoboxes. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for sorting out a new thread. N.b. I didn't consider a response from you to be necessary for my revert, under the circumstances, as weight was in favour of previously established consensus in the RfC. Regards, EP111 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's now at Wikipedia talk:Coordinates in infoboxes. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'm ambivalent to the decision, as I can see favour in both points of view. I'll leave the discussion to others. I'd be grateful if someone could inform me of the outcome. Regards, EP111 (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I wrote a long answer and explanation at the project's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oxford meet up
Hello

Do you have an email address I could contact you on regarding the next Oxford meet up?

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmnt (talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do have an email address, and I don't give it out. The meetup page is Meetup/Oxford/49. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing links on Delta and the Bannermen
Hi Redrose64, thanks for fixing those odd link issues on Delta and the Bannermen. I'm using the visual editor and having it automatically build links for the article from sources. I'm glad you found and fixed those issues with the numbers being placed inside the ref name (4:), because I didn't realize they were there. Do you think that behavior might be a bug with the visual editor? If you've seen those kinds of issues before, could you tell me what might be causing them? Either way, thanks again for fixing them. Curdigirl (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The ref names like  etc. might well originate with Visual Editor directly, or they might be added by somebody who has seen them elsewhere, because they think that it's the "proper" way to do it. I don't like VE, for one reason because it's so difficult to control what it does behind the scenes - things that are obvious if a proper text editor is used. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi protection
You semi protected the Tyne and Wear Metro article back in 2013. I think it might be safe to unprotect it now, since the troll who caused the original problem is long gone. G-13114 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * IIRC it was the same person that was causing so much trouble at Merseyrail. This was and the trouble [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&action=history&offset=20170118000000&limit=45 resumed three days later]. More at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is the same thing, as that seems to be a completely different argument about battery trains. The argument four years ago was about whether Merseyrail was a rapid transit system if I remember. G-13114 (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was: and the T&WM article was also subject to EWing about whether or not it was a rapid transit system. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

New assistance needed
Hello R. When you have a moment would you please take a look at our old friend Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. There are two template redirects which I can't edit, one template sandbox and one article that need your expertise. Only a few weeks to go to new Dr Who episodes :-) Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redrose64?offset=20170327190700&limit=4 These four edits] should do it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I just received this I was intrigued by these "Mythmakers" interviews when they were released originally but they were never available over here. It is fun to finally have a chance to see them. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again R. There are two new template redirects in the category today that can only be edited by an admin so if you could take care of them it would be appreciated. As with yesterday's they have been protected by who, I feel sure, is unaware of the protection templates that need to be used on these. A quick word with J-J would help in future protections. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Got 'em. The previous template was obsolete anyhow so I've replaced it with the correct ones anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✔️, see User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Gatwick Express/Wikimedia Foundation
You seem to be deleting entries that fully comply with Rules_for_Fools and I'd argue that by submitting a humorous entry for speedy deleting you are actually disrupting Wikipedia by adding it to a serious list. Please stop your disruptive editing, calm down and get sense of humor. Then come back and discuss this before reverting again! Thank you. Mainline421 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only did they not "fully comply with Rules_for_Fools"; by creating your discussion in the daily AfD list itself, you also failed to follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Miami metropolitan area template
Ah I didn't see that before. I'm making a new talk page for that template--SeminoleNation (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please cease making reverts . The name parameter of the template has only one purpose - to define the little "v-t-e" links at upper left. The purposes of these three links are to:
 * (v) provide a view of the navbox
 * (t) access the talk page of the navbox
 * (e) to edit the navbox
 * Since the name of the template is Template:South Florida metropolitan area, it is imperative that these three links reach that template (and no other), this is done by setting South Florida metropolitan area, which yields links as follows:.
 * If however you set Miami metropolitan area, what you end up with is - i.e. three incorrect links. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
I'm annoyed by the comments you have put at the talk. I used the word vandalism not at the article but at the talk because the bloke brought a block from a fr wiki on the table which is an attempt to discredit my person. You included the link of my block on the fr wiki which looks like a personal attack, I take it like it. you did it many times. Stop this and erase these links leading to the fr wiki. what happens on another wiki stays there as it was not a vandalism in any sorts, hence mentioning it is inappropriate. Iennes (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was neutral, since I said nothing about you that I did not also say about . It appears to me that you don't check these matters carefully enough, since you made in response to  - when I had served an almost identical message on Koui²  - that is, four minutes before I posted to your page. The only difference between the two, apart from the timestamps, was that the one that I sent to you lacked the six words "No. You should discuss it; and" that were part of my reply to Koui².
 * Have you heard the phrase "Six of One, Half Dozen of the Other", or perhaps "It Takes Two to Tango"? For the record, when I saw that you had made, I could have blocked you without warning on the grounds that you had resumed edit-warring on the day that your block for exactly that behaviour expired, but I didn't - instead I removed the disputed phrase, fully-protected the page, and posted an explanatory note on its talk page. Now, it's clear that the two of you have some sort of vendetta going at French Wikipedia - please don't bring it here. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your view but I do consider that it matters otherwise I wouldn't spend time writing about this because I contribute to the article with facts and sources while the other bloke has added nothing. However I would ask you to not add an edit summary anymore like "not a good example" as it is ambigious. Iennes (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * bingo, your edit summary with "not a good example" worked, it was good lobbying, an user has changed his mind. If I lose, I stop contributing on wikipedia. Iennes (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * was not directed at you, but at, whose comment 'The French page uses "sometimes".' I was replying to. What I intended it to mean was that the page at French Wikipedia is not a good example tor Argento Surfer to have used, since it is subject to a very similar dispute, and hence is not stable, so should not be used as precedent.
 * Wikipedia is not about "winners" and "losers" but about agreement and WP:CONSENSUS. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is time to close that rfc and assess a consensus. Iennes (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I filed a request at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me why you reverted my edit whereas I accepted to put the version that my main opposent supported. By default it should have been added. You are not impartial in any way in this case, from the beginning I see now. 23:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iennes (talk • contribs)
 * As one of the two primary disputants, you should not have pre-empted a closing decision for the RfC. You should have left it for the closer to implement in accordance with the outcome of that RfC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna wait for another decision: let's hope that it will be made by someone who can't count this time. Oh well. sighs. Iennes (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am just curious, did you read the answers on the talk page and you accept that someone seats on the majority of decisions and write an inaccurate decision which doesn't reflect the content of the discussion. Iennes (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Counting does not come into it (and enough with the abuse, thank you). I already explained that it is not a vote. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can strongly disagree with you: none of you and the persons who closed this rfc has ever contributed anything to this article while I did. I shouldn't have obviously. why would I carry on editing on this articleunder these circumstances. Why wasting time speaking with people who clearly don't mind of our work. bye bye 23:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iennes (talk • contribs)
 * Your responses are becoming increasingly difficult to comprehend. What part of WP:RFC states that the only people who can close an RfC are the contributors to the page? The whole point about RfC is that it is an open invitation; by being advertised at pages such as a large number of people are informed of the discussion. They may choose to participate, or they may not; but even though you initiated the RfC, you do not get to decide who can close the discussion. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Locomotive question
What class locomotive was LMS 0-6-0 No. 1909, that was in service in 1932? Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Midland Railway 2441 Class, built 1899 and originally no. 2450. Renumbered three times: to 1909 in 1907; to 7209 in1934; and 47209 in 1948. Withdrawn 1961. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, article expanded. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Archive help please?
Hi Redrose. I can see you are busy and I'm very sorry to bother you with this, but you've helped me in the past with archiving and I wonder if I could please impose on you yet again? I've tried to archive Talk:French horn but it seems to have failed. I wondered if it could be the sort of date format problems I've seen before; also, there had been a previous, partially-completed, attempt to archive it. This had left behind a previous Archive 1 plus many duplicates not moved from the Talk page. In an effort to help with this - in case it was a possible cause of failure - I sorted out the Archive 1, and set the archiver to try for Archive 2. However, it still does not work, and I have reached, I fear, the limits of my competence (it never takes long). Could you possibly have a quick look and tell me what I did wrong? Please remember: bloke, fish, fishing-rod etc ... that's me, that is! I'd love to know what went on here ... Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that has stopped (again). Until it is restarted, we can't really tell whether  was correct or not. I suspect that  was unnecessary. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I had no idea ... I'm a bit technically naive! I see that ClueBot III continues to be stopped, so I am trying lowercase sigmabot III instead. I've guessed that the archive 1>2 thing was perhaps not essential, as you wondered, so I have left it set to 1 and I'll see how it does. Thanks again for your help - it's much appreciated. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Certain living people
Redrose64, I think you made a mistake. My edits concerning those certain living people are true. Homer Simpson of Springfield (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * True or not, you need to demonstrate truth by adding a reference, per the policy on verifiability and also the policy on living persons. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. What I put on these pages is reference enough for anyone. 2. There’s no such things as the policy on verifiability or the policy on living persons, you made them up. Homer Simpson of Springfield (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , looking at this, I find it really weird that these policies that you claim are invented by Redrose64 alone were largely, if not completely, written by other editors. Also, I think there must be something wrong with my computer, because I can't see, on my computer, any references for the infomation you added to the two pages you've linked above. Have a nice day! T ed  E dwards  21:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I only ever made one edit to each of Verifiability (at ) and Biographies of living persons (at ); they were both of low impact. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Template : Swansea District Line
I am looking at the latest edition of this template (Template:Swansea District Line), where the link to the branch line to the Morriston Branch is shown. There is the station of Pentrefelin Halt shown on the commencement of that branch line and if I click on that station, I am transferred to a Wikipedia page of that station name, but NOT the one in question but the station on the Tanat Valley Railway, which is very many miles away to the north. Is it possible that such a link be removed, as it is most confusing.

After, Pentrefelin Halt on the Morriston branch line, I have a query if there were any other stations/halts before the four stations of Moriston, Copper Pit Platform, Plas Marl Halt, Landore (Low Level).

Incidentally, my most grateful thanks for your recent aid on a query that I had originally sent to the talk page of Useddenim

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at various books, and checking links from pre-existing pages, it appears that used the name Pentrefelin Halt railway station for the wrong station, that's the name that should have been used for the station in Glamorgan, whilst the one on the Tanat Valley Light Railway should have been created as Pentrefelin railway station. I'll look at sorting this out later. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I named it as provided by this diff. Feel free to correct as appropriate. Regards, EP111 (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Page is moved now, inward links to Pentrefelin railway station are correct; am still checking inward links to Pentrefelin Halt railway station. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Woolwich railway station
Hiya ! Thanks for messaging me with this edit. I appreciate you've noted that the edits I made do not match the title of the article, however... The problem with the article is that the title >>itself<< is incorrect.

Whoever posted it initially was obviously unaware of the distinction between the stations in Woolwich: 1. Woolwich (Arsenal) overground station. This is the traditional type of station seen everywhere here in the UK, and links in to the national rail network. It is in the middle of the town. If any station in Wikipedia deserves to be called Woolwich station, it's the Woolwich overground station, the oldest of the four. However, everything else in this article except the title is about the newly (still under construction) "Crossrail" station, which will be part of and connected to the London Underground, or "tube".

2. Woolwich Dockyard. This is a separate station, approximately one half of a mile to the west of Woolwich and serves a mostly residential community. It is not practical to walk to it from the town, or desirable. It is on the same line as the central Woolwich overground station, and is another overground station.

3. Woolwich Arsenal DLR station. Also in the middle of the town, the is a separate "light" rail service to both Crossrail and the overground rail line. It also has its own station but is separate to both overground and Crossrail lines.

4. Finally, Woolwich Crossrail station. This station is on the north edge of the town's central area, on the site of the old "Royal Woolwich Arsenal". No-one refers to it as "Woolwich railway station", this is simply incorrect, as this is the name of the OVERGROUND station ! It IS known as both Woolwich Crossrail station, and Woolwich Elizabeth Line station (the new name for the line when it opens - Crossrail is the project name), in order to differentiate it from the other three stations in the area. It is also somewhat confusingly referred to as Woolwich Station, but only in the context of Crossrail literature. However it is NOT, EVER referred to as Woolwich RAILWAY, or Woolwich Railway Station, as a) The existing overground station is called this, and b) because Crossrail is not a railway - it is an integral part of the underground, which is an underground railway line, or "tube" line, which is how Londoners refer to it. This is an important distinction, as the tube/London underground does NOT connect into the national network, it only serves London and a few satellite commuter towns, just as Crossrail does.

Bottom line is, if you asked anyone local what/where Woolwich railway station is, they would correctly point you to the overground station. But the Crossrail station is not a railway station, and it's both incorrect and confusing for Wikipedia to describe it as such, especially with Woolwich having so many similarly named stations.

If you'd like to verify this for yourself (I know it's incredibly confusing for non-locals!), go to maps.google.com and search for "woolwich railway station" It will correctly identify the mainline overground station - you can see this is overground as the lines are visible above ground on both map and earth views. Woolwich DLR station can be seen 50m to the north. And Woolwich Crossrail station / Woolwich Elizabeth Line station (the one I'm complaining so vocally about!) is not visible yet as it's still under construction (I walk past it twice every day), but can be found just to the south east of the Dial Arch pub, another 100m to the north of the DLR station. For verification, you can see that there is a path on the map which is the giveaway of its eventual location - Crossrail Path.

Apologies for the length of this, but it's worth getting right, otherwise Wikipedia is wrong on something basic and verifiable to about 8 million Londoners. Look forward to your response... Many thanks, Jon Reade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonreade (talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not difficult to ask someone local. Shall we try, who lives about twenty minutes away (change at Greenwich)? The bottom line is, we go by Naming conventions (UK stations) unless there is a very good reason not to. Crossrail is part of the National Rail network, and so the first row of the table applies - "x railway station" - and since all evidence suggests that the station nameboards will bear the single word "Woolwich", what we have is Woolwich railway station, which is why the article is named thus. To get that changed, you would start a WP:RM discussion on the article's talk page, which if successful would be followed by a WP:MOVE. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed I am only a short distance away (I'll be using at least one of the stations tomorrow as it happens), I also used to live in Woolwich and Woolwich Arsenal station was my local station for that time. I haven't looked at the article edits concerned, but RedRose is correct about Wikipedia conventions and procedures. Crossrail is not, and will not be, part of London Underground, and the station will according to all reliable sources I've seen be called simply "Woolwich". The mainline (not London Overground) and DLR station is called "Woolwich Arsenal" so is correctly at Woolwich Arsenal station, the national rail only station to the west is called "Woolwich Dockyard" and so the article is correctly titled "Woolwich Dockyard railway station". While Woolwich Arsenal station is sometimes colloquially known as "Woolwich" for short when the context is clear, that is not how Wikipedia articles are named. Whether the title Woolwich railway station should be about the Crossrail station, a redirect to Woolwich Arsenal station or a disambiguation page and where Woolwich station should redirect to is something that can be discussed if you want, but discussion is necessary before any changes are made. Almost any move of an article about a rail transport station in the UK should be treated as potentially controversial due to a long-established naming convention and a long history of people acting without full consideration of all the facts or sources (or sometimes wilful disregard for them). Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PS Woolwich Arsenal is a single station which is served by both mainline trains and DLR trains, not two separate stations. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

New one 18 April 2017
Hello R. A new set of articles has shown up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I think it is related to the protection added here but I could be wrong. I waited to bring this to you to see if the removal of the template would cause articles to drop out of the category but the number of articles has stayed the same. I hope that what is happening is easy for you to find. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is one page that has been there a few days that is unrelated to the above. If you can also check it would be appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That last one was fixed with . All the rest merely needed a WP:NULLEDIT. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One of these days I'll bug to make Twinkle smarter so admins don't have to be :) --Neil N  talk to me 20:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As always thanks for taking care of these. One question comes to mind - was the null edit on each of the 35+ articles or just on the BDA template? Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We could have Twinkle not add any protection on redirects, but I don't think I can easily get it to wrap any redirect templates with Redirect category shell &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  20:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, 35 separate null edits, because the job queue was clearly not moving ten hours after. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What would be OK is that TW could add the appropriate one of, etc. - but none of those should be added if the redirect already has either  or , since those both autodetect the prot level and act accordingly. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

April 25
Hello again R. I just found all sorts of user pages and dashboards on the list. I did some digging and couldn't find any page(s) that had a new protection applied that would have caused this. I know I probably missed something easy. If you could track it down that would be much appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a combination of several edits to the lead section of WP:RFPP where people didn't read the comment "please put protection templates *inside* the noinclude, because this page is transcluded", the worst of which was by  where the opening  was actually removed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yikes whatta mess. Thanks for fixing things. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this is about, but thanks for pinging me to share your opinion that my edits were "the worst" example of an editor who "didn't read the comment". It's pretty obvious that "this sequence of edits" was performed with an automated tool that removed the noinclude bit when changing one protection tag for another. I would argue that it's not unreasonable for someone to not notice when a small bit of code gets incorrectly removed by an automated tool that's purportedly carrying out the most simple of tasks and usually doesn't encounter such issues. S warm   ♠  05:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What this is about is that around 100 pages were in when they shouldn't have been, and your removal of the  tag from Requests for page protection was the direct cause of that: once I had restored the top of that page to its previous state, the category emptied apart from one or two pages that were in the category for a more suitable reason.
 * I should remind you that you are responsible for every edit that is made under your name, automated or not. Since you were using Twinkle, I draw your attention to the box at the top of WP:TW, where it states "Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Twinkle." which is restated in the first sentence at WP:TW as "Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle." -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Bicester Town railway station
Actually, if you look at the two templates involved, I have not "bypassed" a redirect, but replaced a template deprecated by community consensus with the community-approved replacement. This is part of a project to replace all instances of this template in Wikipedia. I would therefore respectfully request that you undo your reversion on this redirect. Of course, it will eventually be corrected back to the new template by one of the several bots that the community is now working on to undertake this task, but it is better to deal with this up front, and avoid any possible confusion in the future. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you adding undesirable newlines? This is not an isolated instance. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your intent is to assume good faith and discuss this civilly. When I started working on this task, I checked out a few precedents and copied their formatting. I assume that they used new lines for the same reason that templates and categories in articles use new lines, to make it easier to parse them. If you can point me to a policy or guideline which states that these new lines are in fact undesirable, I will be glad to remediate them. It is trivially easy to have a bot format line spacing to whatever degree is desired. bd2412  T 23:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Only one newline (no blank lines) is actually necessary; prefers that there be one blank line (two newlines); but the use of two blank lines (which causes extra vertical space) is against pretty much all layout guidelines except one - the one concerning stub templates. Three (which I have seen in some of your edits) is right out. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi ya'll - yes, I've always thought of editor-readers and the readability of redirect pages. To promote readability, I like to leave one blank line between the REDIRECT line and the start line of the Rcat shell.  I also like to place each rcat on its own line even though that is not necessary either.  It is more easily read in the same manner as the WikiProjectBannerShell.  Also noted is that it is apparent that the talk pages are not being updated to the new template.  When the talk pages exist, they have probably been tagged with the deprecated Redr template and will also need to be converted.  If the bot does not do the talk pages, then it will think it is finished but there will still be many thousands of transclusions left to do.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  10:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of removing the excess newlines now. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor changing your talk-page comments
I thought someone should alert you that an editor has now twice changed your comments at the Admin Noticeboard page: --Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't change your comments, but feel free to believe their lies. nihlus kryik (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * . You did; you also sailed close to WP:DISRUPTIVE and were one edit shy of receiving a formal warning for WP:3RR. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Jgrantduff
WP:CIR. Some of their past posts on "hacking" are even more bizarre. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Women's sport template
When you have a chance, can you sync Template: WikiProject Women's sport/sandbox with the live one? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, ✅ -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

North Pembrokeshire and Fishguard Railway
Still being very unsure of how to make contact with Afterbrunel (who has produced numerous of his special style of coloured route maps in articles), I humbly beg your assistance in asking you to contact him on my behalf to say that on the coloured route map in the main Wikipedia article on this railway that he produced, it shows a mistake. Martell Bridge Halt was prior to, not after, Beulah Halt. The main body of the Wikipedia article confirms what I have said above.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you tried posting to User talk:Afterbrunel? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My attempts, in my very poor state of health at the age of 72, to do this were unsuccessful and this is the reason that I asked a respected personage such as your good self to contact him on my behalf, so he can correct the mistakes on his coloured line schematic drawing. I would still ask this favour from you. You will know by the number of edits that I make that instances such as this request for help are not often made by me.
 * Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's try notifying them then., are you aware of this problem? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not; but I will correct it later today. Thank you both; errors noticed and reported are always welcome. Afterbrunel (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oops!
So that's where the missing A went ... good catch, thanks! DBaK (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Celebrating 8 years of editing

 * . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

An RFC....
Hi, can you please explain me how Talk:Menstrual disc turns up at Category:Wikipedia proposals at RFC listing.I can't find any apparent reason for the same. Winged Blades Godric 04:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean or something else? It's always best to link the page where you see the problem. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No,Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. Winged Blades Godric 09:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's there because made  after  had added the rfcid parameter. When there is no rfcid, it's quite safe to alter the RfC category parameters; but once Legobot has set the rfcid then removing an RfC category parameter (including altering it to something else) should only be done if the rfcid is also removed.  should fix it on the next bot run (10:01 UTC).
 * On the other hand, adding an RfC category parameter (when none are being removed) may be done at any time, provided that the new param is placed before any existing rfcid (which need not be removed). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed clarification. Winged Blades Godric 11:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know that. I'll try to remember when I make such adjustments in future. Tamwin (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

MOS protection
Pay closer attention please. After three requests, whatshisname indeed reapplied his changes (a subset of them, anyway, so far) in a number of smaller edits. Since then made two obvious, uncontroversial fixes, and I've made one obvious, uncontroversial fix. There's no problem, and no justification for protection.  E Eng  23:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I explained why at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Yeah, and if your Adminship isn't too busy to actually figure out what's going on, you'll read what I said above, look at the edits so far, and see that the troublesome editor has fallen into line, conformed his edits to community standards, and since then DrKay and I have made minor, uncontroversial adjustments. There's no problem and no need for protection. Oh, wait, that's what I just said above.  E Eng  23:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you are stating that there's no problem, then you won't be wanting to alter it any more, which means that protection won't be hindering you, so there's no justification for unprotection. If you - or anybody else - do want to make changes to such a highly-visible page (whether it is protected or not), they should really be discussed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "There's no problem" means there's no longer a problem with the editor who was making extensive changes over the objections of others, not that there are not constructive changes still to be made. Your statement If you - or anybody else - do want to make changes to such a highly-visible page (whether it is protected or not), they should really be discussed is flat-out wrong -- that proviso applies to substantive changes. There are now several editors at the talk page trying to tell you that you've made a mistake. Please reverse yourself.  E Eng  17:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If we discount protests by the people directly involved (one of whom,, hasn't posted there yet), we find that three people have commented. Of those, one didn't mention the protection at all; so there are just two uninvolved people who have commented on the protection itself.  wrote "I can't see a pressing need for page protection at the current time.", and  wrote "Protection is maybe not quite the right approach, although I do understand the reasoning." -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, fuck, whatever. Like I said, I've had enough of shoot-from-the-hip highhanded admins for the time being. Next time, please leave things to someone who has the time to actually look at what's going on and apply common sense.  E Eng  20:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I shall treat that remark just as I treat all similar remarks from you: by resolving not to try assisting you again. Until the next time that I assume good faith, that is - or the next time that I forget about past interactions: you have had a bad attitude towards me ever since the very first time that I tried to assist you. Subsequent attempts to be helpful have often been rejected by you (such as here). I don't think that it's personal: I've seen you treat others in the same manner. But please take note: your attitude may mean that I let the page protection run its course, instead of lifting it before the seven days is up - as I might have decided to do -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

There have been times when you have been helpful, and for that I thank you. But what the two threads you link demonstrate is... um... exactly the behavior of yours that I described near the end of the second of those two threads:
 * In sum you have an annoying habit of trying to explain why people shouldn't want to do what they want to do, or should get along with current painful and inadequate facilities, instead of addressing the request being made.

That tendency, which that quote describes in the context of technical discussions, seems to be a special form of a more general problem illustrated in the current context: you seem incapable of revising your initial construction of a situation, no matter how much contrary evidence is presented.

Your bizarre statement that you might leave a page protected just because you don't like my attitude epitomizes the high-handedness and poor judgment you display in general. You're exactly the kind of admin the project doesn't need.  E Eng  23:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't get your way by continuing with such remarks; your [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AEEng block log] is interesting. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think bringing up my block log, with me or anyone else, will score you any points then you really, really need to spend more time outside the dark corners of the project. I have a long history of being blocked by clueless admins who ended up on the wrong end of a trout, or worse.  E  Eng  23:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Redrose: there are now by my count five editors on the MOS talk page arguing against continued protection (EEng, Anomalocaris, BushelCandle, Sb2001, and Primergrey) and no arguments there or here in favor of continued protection. (I'm not counting your prickly interaction with EEng as an actual reason for continued protection). So to me that looks like a consensus. Can you unprotect, please? Or at least explicitly stand down and let someone else unprotect (I'd be happy to do it myself, if for some reason you think it would protect your honor to not do it yourself). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Primergrey seems to have misunderstood several things; but apart from that, they're not actually asking for unprotection. But if anybody other than the two initial disputants takes this to WP:RFPU, and an uninvolved admin decides to unprotect, I won't contest it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which two of the "three people (Anomalocaris, DrKay and EEng)" you listed in your original block message do you now consider to be "initial disputants"? And does your emphasis on uninvolved mean that you think I am somehow involved? What have I done to become involved? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my most recent post at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, the two who made the earliest of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&action=history&offset=20170507235959&limit=16 these edits]. And no, you're not involved, as you didn't edit the page in question. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected; can easily be reprotected at a pinch. Lectonar (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Unmodified not Unrebuilt
Dear Redrose64,

I hope that you can understand my intentions to correct the article on the Bulleid Light Pacifics. I lived for twelve years in Eastleigh and knew a couple of engineers from the railway. My father told me clearly the correct term for the Bulleid Pacifics, both Light Pacifics and the Merchant Navys was either Unmodified or Modified. This is born true by the original Bulleid technical drawings. For they too refer to the locomotives as being either Unmodified or Modified. I have access to digital images of the BPLA technical drawings. These are being used to help restore these locomotives and for a time I was involved in restoring 35011. I left for personal reasons. There is no such word as "Unrebuilt". How on Earth can something be unrebuilt! One may say unmodified meaning 'non, or not modified', or as-built.. but you can't undo something that has not happened. It does not make any sense at all, it is grammatically quite wrong. One of the engineers I knew actually met Oliver Bulleid and I also met Barry Curl, the son of Reginald L. Curl who was an assistant to O.V.S Bulleid. I started off the project to retro engineer 35011 General Steam Navigation back into air-smoothed casing. Sadly even books have been published with incorrect information, Richard Derry may not be 100% accurate all the time and the more often these mistakes have been published, the more often people assume the information to constitute a fact - a misnomer. I have been involved in steam preservation, attended a number of the BPLA meetings and deeply researched the Bulleid Pacifics and I can assure you, the original and correct term for these locomotives is Unmodified or Modified. The uneducated may not see any difference but the locomotives were regarded originally as modified, not actually rebuilt. Even Ron Jarvis described the locomotives as about 85% Bulleid. Another problem we now face is the critical views towards the original locomotives. They were a little more involved and a little higher maintenance but were certainly nothing like as bad as they were sometimes portrayed to be. Bearing in mind the time when these locomotives were built. Why would anybody go to so much trouble to try to make this point if I wasn't sincere? Furthermore it is ironic that such information regarding other aspects of the locomotives is documented when a correct term I have tried to restore has been considered unacceptable. I have seen the original navigators helm that was going to be used before the Southern roundel with my naked eyes. I know what is on the original locomotive drawings - I managed to get all the original Merchant Navy drawings from Barry Curl before his death, that were missing from the BPLA archives, about eighty four in total. I swear solemnly the correct term for the Bulleid Pacifics is either Unmodified or Modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TPEsprit (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You refer, of course, to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SR_West_Country_and_Battle_of_Britain_classes&action=history&dir=prev&offset=20170421000000 these edits] and the associated reversions by myself (once) and (three times). The thing is, Wikipedia has certain core policies, the most important of which include those relating to verifiability and no original research. Your edits went against both of those, and your post above, far from justifying your edits, merely confirms that you have not understood our policies. Knowing people who worked in the trade is not sufficient for our requirements; perhaps I also knew a lot of railway engineers, and they might have been the same ones that you knew. Or I might never have met a single one in my life. You cannot be sure.
 * Our article, amongst its sources, lists D. L. Bradley's Locomotives of the Southern Railway: Part 2, published in 1976 by the Railway Correspondence and Travel Society. The works published by the RCTS have been, for several decades now, highly respected for their fact checking and accuracy; and Bradley is a highly regarded author. In his books, Bradley uses the terms "rebuilt" or "rebuild" consistently. For those locomotives not so treated, both "non-rebuild" and "original condition" are used.
 * If you disagree with the content of an article, and your edit is reverted, the proper thing to do is not persistently re-do the same edit again and again. Instead you should raise the matter at the article's talk page, which in this case is Talk:SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes, and there discuss it with others (see the talk page guidelines). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me regarding article: SR_West_Country_and_Battle_of_Britain_classes

I have uploaded a selection of images showing original technical diagrams created by BR using my Pinterest account. These include the classifications Modified/Unmodified used for the locomotives at the time. I hope these will be useful in verifying what we have discussed and could be used on the wikipedia article. I have more images which I have not uploaded as of yet but I would be happy to do so if it is of assistance. I'm sorry I am not very well versed with Wikipedia but I am getting used to the necessary procedures in order to edit information.

The link to my Pinterest board for these tech drawings is: https://uk.pinterest.com/tpesprit/bulleid-pacific-technical-drawings/

Many thanks for your help and best wishes.

TPEsprit (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Which PP template should be used
Hello R. When you have a moment would you please check the PP at the article. On the 6th it looks like PC was altered and regular protection was applied as well. I'm not sure which template is the correct one to use when this occurs but the current one is causing it to show up in the category. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where it says "reset pending changes settings", that means that all PC was lifted by, and so the should have been removed as well;  did this in . The only thing still outstanding is that there is no padlock reflecting the current one-year semi-protection and this may be rectified by adding  -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is there also a "reconfigure pending changes" setting? IF so I think I hadn't paid attention to the difference between the two. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look through the Pending changes log, you'll see what kinds of entries there are. Mostly they are of four types:
 * altered pending changes settings for - PC was altered, but not removed
 * configured pending changes settings for - PC was added
 * moved pending changes settings from - a page with PC was moved
 * reset pending changes settings for - PC was removed
 * There may be others, I'm not sure. To view the logs for any page, go to its page history and you'll see a link at the top "View logs for this page". To list the the four relating to PC (only), go to the logs page and in the first selection list, pick "Pending changes log" and then click . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for these details. I do check the "view logs" in certain situations - mostly to be sure that there was a protection placed on the article. Some non-admin editors think if they add a PP template that the article can't be edited by others and I can confirm whether that is going on by checking the log. It is also saves digging through the edit history when a protection was placed months ago. These PC summaries that you took the time to type out will be of help in the future. Cheers and I hope you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Try for adminship. Admins get an extra tab, variously named "protect" or "change protection". Clicking this doesn't just allow prots and PC to be imposed/amended/removed: it also shows the logs for both prot and PC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I've never been sure whether I'm right for adminship. In any event my recent block has made it moot for the foreseeable future. I do appreciate the thought though. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

New one
Hello again. User:RonBot showed up in the cat today. It might have something to do with this edit but I might be wrong. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also would you please double check my edit here to see if I did the right thing. I was using what you taught me at the Galileo article but I wanted to be sure. As ever thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - the article is no longer in the cat so I think things are copacetic. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding User:RonBot: I fixed it with, because had failed to notice that the page was transcluded. Regarding Negro,  was incorrect, since the page was not under ECP (and never has been) - but the real question is, why did  do ? The page hasn't been move-protected since  lifted it at 02:41, 25 September 2010. I've reverted the last two edits. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My change from sysop to autoconfirmed move protection may have been a slip, the main purpose was to make the autoconfirmed edit protection indefinite. However, it has only been move-vandalised once, in 2008. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you R. I am trying to learn (and remember when possible) the ins and outs of when there are two templates on the same article. So I appreciate when you explain things in detail. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Huddersfield Line
In the body of the article, in the section referring to the list of stations, Copley Hill is shown printed in red. It seems that Wikipedia have no references to that station in the sections that a thorough search would normally reveal something. I ask you, as you have made a 2017 edit this year on the line if you would investigate this matter.

Also, whilst all other closed stations are shown on the line diagram in the article, Copley Hill is not positionally shown anywhere.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * According to page 48 of my Jowett, this is a goods station just below Leeds in the diagram. I will try to put it on there when I find out which symbol to use. Britmax (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Placed. As always all corrections and better ideas welcome. Britmax (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for help
Hello, Redrose64 - I wonder if you can help this editor at Help desk. The requester deleted the request for help because she did not receive a reply, so I reverted and put it back onto the page. Even if no one is ultimately able to help her, don't you think it would be nice if she received a reply? – Corinne (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Request
I am looking for a user to expand the category articles of List_of_Emirati_women_artists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.159.133 (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with me? Or if you prefer, why do you think that I would be an appropriate person to ask? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hull Paragon Interchange
I was basing it on this section: Hull_Paragon_Interchange

Does the total only account for those which are numbered for passenger use? There's actually 11 if you include those outside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dx1111 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"The G.T. Andrews designed Paragon Station" Does this make grammatical sense to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dx1111 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The platforms parameter is for the number of platforms in regular use for passenger services. Platform 1 is not in regular use. As for "The G.T. Andrews designed Paragon Station", I might put in a hyphen, as in "The G.T. Andrews-designed Paragon Station", but otherwise it's correct. Also, please sign your posts. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems a shame to leave them out as they do tangibly exist at the station and are used in some way. Dx1111 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They may be mentioned in the article text, with a reference to a source per the policy on verifiability. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

On second read through it reads correctly and my edit was incorrect. Dx1111 (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox London Station
Thanks for that fix on Infobox London Station. I seem to remember that there used to be a tool for renumbering the labels in templates, but I couldn't find it and didn't have the time earlier to do it manually, so just did the temporary kludge. I came back this evening to do it properly and you've save me the effort. I'm pretty sure that there were gaps in the numbering as well in the past.--DavidCane (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Somebody did use that tool once, and it undid all the work that I had put in a few days/weeks earlier. It renumbers all the params consecutively from 1 upwards, so that a year later, you need to renumber again. Any experienced BASIC programmer will tell you that you should always leave gaps. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)