Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Hello, Redrose64! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Signature icon.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

RfC[edit]

Hi there Redrose64. I'm reaching out to you because you are a very experienced editor and administrator, and you have also commented at WT:MOS#Spacing RfC.

That RfC isn't sitting well with me, because there are a lot of editors supporting a change to the MOS, which will impact the editing style of thousands of editors. And much of the support is out of sympathy to the editor who proposed the RfC, who claims the extra lines make it easier to see.

I searched through a few central talk pages, and have been unable to find even one previous discussion about this, or a single editor who has complained about the lack of lines impeding their vision.

When I looked through the edit history of the editor who proposed this, I also didn't see someone making edits because of a vision issue, and a vision issue was never mentioned in any edit summary. What I saw were edits to Florida city articles made alphabetically, first making cosmetic improvements, and then editing almost exclusively to add line spaces after section headings, sometimes making as many as five edits per minute to the same article, just to add an extra line to each section. The editor had made hundreds of bot-like edits until they reached "M", when I left a message on their talk page asking why they were doing this. They immediately responded by creating the RfC.

The editor has stated that they added all these extra lines so that when they went back in the future to edit the article, it would be easier to see. But their edit history doesn't show this. At Avon Park, Florida, for example, they made this edit to the "notable people" section, during which an extra line was added after the section heading. But when they returned to that article three weeks later, they edited a table in the "geography" section, and didn't add an extra line under the geography heading.

The editor also claimed they started the RfC so their addition of extra lines wouldn't be reverted, but then stated that no editor had ever reverted them.

My real concern is that last month another editor asked them "why do you make so many edits instead of just one?", and "I did mention those bulk edits because it seems like a potential case of editcountitis". The editor who proposed this RfC responded that editing this way "calmed them down" because they have OCD.

I'm not trying to judge or "out" someone, I just see too many things that don't add up, and I don't want to see a policy changed unnecessarily.

Thanks for reading. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading–Basingstoke Line[edit]

Re MOS:TIME, you'll have to tell whoever wrote it in the first place, I was just reverting someone trying to impose the AP/PM format. though, yes, I should have spotted it. cheers Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

Sorry about that. Please have this kitten that appears to almost be hiding. That is how I feel right now. :)

♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
[reply]

OK, Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical Inquirer RFC[edit]

It wasn't clear to me whether I should have marked it as done=yes when I was declining the close. Thank you for straightening out. Now I know what should have been done in this unusual situation. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The |done=yes parameter means "no further action required". I've explained this several times, both at WT:RFC and on this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1400[edit]

The Oliver mention is properly cited and takes up less than a line. I notice you don't have the same loathing of Tiftield reference above, which is much longer. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor: No, it was completely uncited (see my revert). Whether it takes up less than a line is irrelevant: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and WP:V is policy, as is WP:NOR. If you would look at the page history, you will find a large number of attempts - mainly by IPs - to add such trivia which is normally unsourced, or sourced only to an unreliable fansite. Also, what is "Tiftield reference above"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:HeathCon colour[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:HeathCon colour has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

I can see that you have made lots of contributions to the wiki, here's a kitten as a thanks.

Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
[reply]

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Azuma For You[edit]

The East Coast Line at Grantshouse, geograph 6363841 by Walter Baxter.jpg An Azuma For You
For you TheScottish801 (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And an unchained melody[edit]

I looked and looked and looked at what I had written and for the life of me couldn't see what I had done wrong. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'hanks...[edit]

...for catching that, a copy-paste mistake. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement[edit]

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. That works out at one edit every 18.25 days. So easy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rail citation templates[edit]

Hi, Red, two railway book citation templates you created, Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-10A and Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-11, are unused. Do you plan on having these used? I know that these are part of a series. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're part of a set (listed at Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-11#See also) that myself and others were using. Volume 11 was the last one published, and there will be no more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But do you intend to add them to articles using the citation outside of template space through these templates for transclusion? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. Not today though, I have other things to do. Have you asked the dozens of other people who might potentially use the template? But remember, WP:There is no deadline, so what harm is it causing? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii RFC removal[edit]

I note you removed the RFC hat on talk:Hawaii because I used the wrong template. That's fine, but a note on my talk page would have been much more helpful than a deletion with an ambiguous edit summary and no note. I had to dig back through the actual diffs to figure out what happened. In the future, please at least leave an edit summary that explains you removed the RFC hat. agtx 13:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Agtx: I did. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that edit summary, which I didn't find helpful. A person couldn't read it and understand what the edit was. That would have been fine if you had added a comment in the discussion or dropped a note for me, but neither of those things happened (at least not until several days later). Even just adding "deleted RFC hat" to the edit summary would have been enough to tip me off that I needed to take additional action. All I'm suggesting is that slowing down and adding a little bit more explanation for good faith editors who make procedural mistakes is a good idea. agtx 19:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's got two links. They're there for a reason: so that I don't have to write it all out longhand. Edit summaries are summaries. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that it is a little disheartening to see a Wikipedia administrator so resistant to what is ultimately a very mild suggestion as to something that could have been done a little differently. An edit summary that contains just two links isn't a summary. It says nothing about what you did in the edit. All I'm suggesting is that you didn't communicate as clearly as you thought you did, which can be difficult to see when you're steeped in these procedures every day (as most of us are not). I'm not saying you had to write the whole thing out longhand. Two words -- "RFC removed" -- would have done it. I've been around long enough that I'm not going to get bitten, but that's the risk I'm addressing. agtx 13:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abermule[edit]

At the top of the list: "This list includes notable accidents on railways that were later amalgamated with the Great Western Railway." Which I took to include Cambrian Railways, thus making the Abermule train collision a notable entry. There is already one Cornwall Railway accident on the list (Menheniot 2/12/1873). -- Verbarson  talkedits 12:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an entry at Cambrian Railways#Accidents, it doesn't need to be in both places. By contrast, the article Cornwall Railway has no section for accidents. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks. -- Verbarson  talkedits 14:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert in MOS[edit]

Here you write that "the position of those nbsps was intentional". What do you mean? MOS:PUNCTFOOT says that "All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space." (italics preserved), and all other footnotes in WP:MOS follow this rule. Look, for example, at the other footnote in the same sentence that you've "corrected". What is the purpose of inserting extra spaces before a footnote in that single particular case? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look earlier in the same paragraph.
  • a 51–30 win;   a 12–0 perfect season;   a 22–17 majority vote;  [1] but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals
Each of the three examples is followed by a semicolon and a pair of non-breaking spaces. You removed one of these pairs, and moved another to after the ref - but left the first pair alone:
  • a 51–30 win;   a 12–0 perfect season;a 22–17 majority vote;[2]   but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals
This has left the sentence messy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my intention was only to remove the two NBSPs before the footnote; the other two – between the examples – must remain, of course (my mistake, I don't know how I've removed them without noticing). The result should have been:
  • a 51–30 win;   a 12–0 perfect season;   a 22–17 majority vote;[3] but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals: a six-to-two majority decision, not with the awkward six–two;  avoid confusingly reversed order: a 17–22 majority vote[a]
Do you agree with it? (By the way, it would make more sense to use   instead of     in all such cases, but this needs to be discussed at the MOS talk page.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Hyphens, En Dashes, Em Dashes". www.chicagomanualofstyle.org. Chicago Manual of Style. Retrieved 9 March 2022.
  2. ^ "Hyphens, En Dashes, Em Dashes". www.chicagomanualofstyle.org. Chicago Manual of Style. Retrieved 9 March 2022.
  3. ^ "Hyphens, En Dashes, Em Dashes". www.chicagomanualofstyle.org. Chicago Manual of Style. Retrieved 9 March 2022.

Notes

  1. ^ It is not logically possible to have a "12–35 victory", except in a game where a lower score is better. Otherwise, use a construction like Clovis beat Portales, 35–12, or Jameson lost the election, 2345 votes to 6789, to Garcia, with parties, result, and number order in logical agreement.

Lynton and Barnstaple Railway[edit]

Lynton and Barnstaple Railway has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London 180[edit]

Could you set up a geo-notice please as it is on 8 May. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: It looks like The wub (talk · contribs) did it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220515022926/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redrose64

Leave a Reply