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

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]

Thirteenth anniversary on Wikipedia![edit]

Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid incivility. Snide comments[edit]

There was no need to leave this edit comment: [1] The meaning of the initialism may be clear to you but it is not to everyone. Please consider [2], and especially Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don'ts" of the Wikipedia Civility policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.215.42 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About my recent RfC[edit]

Hello Redrose64. Thank you for your comments on my recent RfC. I tried now to make it clearer that the RfC is about shortening the section "Removal of designation", but some editors have already voted on something different (splitting the "History" section). To make things less confusing, would it be ok to open a new RfC with the splitting the "History" section proposal and move the votes about that there? This way each RfC would address what each is about. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Any time I have ever seen a malformed RFC, you are there to make sure it gets corrected. I really appreciate that about you, and it helps ensure the RFC process, in general, runs smoothly. Face-smile.svg –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Face-smile.svg Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP USRD and MILHIST banners[edit]

What kind of effort (social-political or technical) would it take to get these last two banners transitioned over to WPBM? It would help both now (for TemplateStyles) and for the future (when banners are no longer HTML tables) if these could get moved over. Not a big deal for me if the timeline is never, but it does save someone (possibly me) some future grief. Izno (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attracting participation in a Merge Request[edit]

How to proceed from here? Earlier you had advised me to not advertise of merge-proposals via a RfC. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to take the RfC route only incentivizes, what might be construed as, heckler's veto. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: Of the three WikiProject banners at the top of the page, you have informed two of them (Central Asia and Afghanistan), but apparently not WikiProject Ethnic groups. Regardless, it's been four months with three participants (Otr500 (talk · contribs) being the third), so perhaps the WikiProject members don't care enough to comment. I'm with पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs) on this one: there is insufficient support for a merge; but I really don't think that an RfC will help, since it will target a large number of people who have little or no knowledge of the subject area, and will be less inclined to comment then the WikiProjects are. My advice would be to let the matter drop - but if you want formal closure, there is WP:CR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Central Asia etc. are inactive wiki-projects for all practical purposes; I knew from the offset — notwithstanding your well-meaning advice — about the futility of informing them. For my vehement disagreement with Pataliputra, it is indeed true that nobody excluding the two of us seem to bother about the topic-area.
RfCs are meant to attract people who have little or no knowledge of the subject area - do you offer any opposition if I convert the discussion to a RfC? Obviously, if the RfC fails to bring closure, I will let the proposal drop. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I do think that a RfC will help - see the participation rate at this merge request. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seven people. That's you, me, पाटलिपुत्र and four others: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs), ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs), Austronesier (talk · contribs) and Ytpks896 (talk · contribs). Not exactly a great deal, and you closed it, despite being heavily involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can have my closure challenged at WP:AN. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: No need to be bellicose, I think User:Redrose64 is just trying to give you some good advice. It is simply not good practice to close a proposal by yourself when you are so directly involved. I don't think anybody would take you to WP:AN for this, except is this was repeated behaviour, oblivious of warnings, and if this became disruptive. Let's work together, and let's try to follow the rules. We're just a bunch of volunteers trying to do the right thing, no need for drama. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, respectfully, I think it should be the other way around. Consider a page-creation as a bold edit, and a merge as a revert. The WP:ONUS is on the page-creator to convince the other editors of the need for a separate page. If not, the WP:STATUSQUO should be a merged page.

See the comments I and others have made at WT:INDIA. पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs) is a compulsive page-creator. He is not alone, of course. But these new pages that nobody cares about, and nobody bothers to comment on, represent an unnecessary overhead we can do without. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Rulers (here, kings) for whom there is a decent amount of information generally deserve their own page on Wikipedia. There is little sense in merging the page of a political entity with the pages of its individual rulers: the article on the political entity will focus on generalities (geography, historical events, art, dynastic order etc...), while individual pages can focus on the known specifics of each ruler (life, known documents, coinage, various academic theories etc...). Further, having an individual page for a given ruler facilitates navigation: redirects to sub-segments of a large article never work in the long term as they keep getting broken with the slightest change in the spelling of the target subtitle. As to the "compulsive page-creator" jibe, this might be a bit of an overstatement: in average I have only created about one article a week on Wikipedia. This is a fairly healthy amount for a content creator, not a world apart from your own average. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits[edit]

If you don't like how I edited those three pages, so be it, but please, at least, look at what I edited and consider fleshing out those sources yourself. Thanks!
--Xenophore; talk 18:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophore: When you make many changes to an article in a single edit, it can be difficult to pick out the beneficial changes. What I saw was improper use of {{date}} - see its documentation, which states explicitly This template should only be used internally in other templates. I also saw wholesale conversion of the references to WP:LDR without prior discussion, contrary to WP:CITEVAR; and the similarly-undiscussed use of {{r}} and {{refn}}, both of which are not in regular use - they are rarely necessary. Since it is never necessary to use |language=en in cite templates - the documentation states When the only source language is English, no language is displayed in the citation., and it's not a foreign language source, it is doubly unnecessary to use |language=en-gb. You also sorted the categories alphabetically, which goes against this policy discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm still getting the hang of some of this. Xenophore; talk 19:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Please review WP:GOODFAITH and tell me where it says we can't make duplicates of the same message for birthdays, first edit days, etc, thanks a lot, as 86.173.215.42 said, avoid snide comments. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 17:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DinosaurTrexXX33: The message that you sent and the two that Idoghor Melody (talk · contribs) sent were identical (apart from the signatures) to one previously sent by Interstatefive (talk · contribs). They included the text "On behalf of the Birthday Committee", which means that each of you was acting for the group: only one of the three of you should have posted in that capacity. Do you have a checklist to record who has been messaged? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64::I understand your point but I don't see where it says that on WP:BIRTHDAYS. If I am wrong, please message me back. Regards, Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: a part of Wikipedia:BDC states that “More than one person from the committee may send messages to the same person and belated greetings are ok too.” and this contradicts your opinion. Thank you. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the talk page help. You're absolutely right that these birthday messages are borderline spam.

Can we please block this kid for a year or two? Surely this user page is enough to say they're not ready to contribute constructively to a free encyclopedia. And a quick scan of their contributions indicates that they have very little interest in editing articles or otherwise improving the project. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a child, and I am not fully matured yet, and even if I am not, I still try to help out Wikipedia. Please review WP:GOOD FAITH as I wasn't trying to do anything wrong (but I did do a few things wrong, so I can take the blame for that), and I might have been on this site for 2 years, but I still do not know my way around, I leave it to the users to help me. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 11:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A blocked editor, a draft and a new editor with half your name[edit]

I've received an e-mail from blocked editor Djm-leighpark concerning Draft:John Melling (locomotive engineer). New editor RedrO ehT (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)) has added the image to the draft. Djm is concerned that there may be allegations of socking, which he denies, and is concerned that there may be an attempt to get him globally locked as the "Red" part of the new editors user name is also part of an alternative user name of his.

Not sure what we can do about the concerns raised, other than keeping an eye on AN or ANI. The new user's name may be of concern as a possible imitator or yourself, although it is "The Order" spelled backwards. A possible indicator of someone intent on mischief. Or it could be entirely innocent.

The draft article itself is fully referenced, and covers a locomotive engineer active in the 1830s. As editors in good standing, there is nothing stopping us moving the draft to mainspace, is there? Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had not previously heard of the subject of the article. He's not mnentioned by Baxter or John Marshall. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a search of contemporary local newspapers, nothing turned up except one item re the improvements to steam locomotives. Plenty of other John Mellings's who were petty criminals, but nothing on the engineer. I'm minded to move the draft to mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

If you are providing personal advice to a user, you may wish to use talk pages instead of using edit summaries as a personalised messaging system. In today's Wikipedia climate with admins walking on eggs, saying things on Wikipedia that might not fully comply with convention could be construed by some editors as a lack of AGF or even back-door criticism. Some editors might simply tacitly retire. Newbies might even complain vociferously, or other governance obsessives might even complain on their behalf. Been there, done that, got my admin T-shirt stripped off my back 😉 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks nevertheless for the heads up. That said, as semi-retired I do not expect to be launching many RfC in the near future if I can possibly avoid it. My sensibilities are these days are very much on edge, hence my withdrawal from most things on WP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley You're welcome! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template adjacent stations on Shenzhen Metro[edit]

Can I pick your brains again please? I can't get my head around the syntax for Template:Adjacent stations on Shenzhen Metro (system=SZM). On several articles (ie Shangfen station, Shangtang station & Shenzhen North station) the template is used in the info box & should point to Hongshan station (Shenzhen Metro) but currently go to the dab page Hongshan station. I've tried every combination of parameters that I can think of but none seem to work. Any help appreciated.— Rod talk 08:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used it. I think that I spoke out against it right from the start, on the grounds that it was difficult to use unless properly set up and documented. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I wrote documentation for disambiguating stations at Module:Adjacent stations#Disambiguating stations. Feedback is always appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have often found it difficult and it is a frequent issue identified (among other railway related ones) at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links.— Rod talk 20:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I wrote that detailed explainer in response to feedback from someone who works on page disambiguation. Is it helpful? Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, I fixed it: [3]. Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what detailed explainer you are referring to - but thanks for fixing this example.— Rod talk 21:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further up in the thread: Module:Adjacent stations#Disambiguating stations. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:NET colour[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:NET colour has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for sorting out that list at VPP[4]. I'd say "what was I thinking?" but I clearly wasn't. NebY (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley You're welcome! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BR Class 26[edit]

Hi. I’ve recently been changing the status of class 26 loco 26040 to ‘engine running, traction achieved by I.Fitzpatrick 15/6/22’ which is accurate. Can we please stop changing it back to ‘undergoing repair’ when this doesn’t provide an accurate reflection of the current position. Ftzi (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ftzi: You refer, I presume, to edits like this (where you added Engine running & traction achieved by I.Fitzpatrick 15/6/22), this (Traction achieved & ran for the first time on a heritage railway 15/6/22 by I.Fitzpatrick.) and this (Traction achieved 15/6/22 by I.Fitzpatrick.). I think that it means that on 15 June 2022 (and regarding 15/6/22, please see the guideline on writing dates) somebody called I.Fitzpatrick started the engine. This information is of an unencyclopedic (some might say insignificant) nature, and it has all the appearance of blogging. Please observe the policy on verifiability: personal knowledge is only acceptable if already published in reliable third-party sources. I don't know who I.Fitzpatrick is, but I expect that they are alive, in which case the policy on living persons applies also. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A1x terrier stepney[edit]

thank you for contributions. I think you made a mistake on the edit I made. I did not make it in a non-neutral point of view. I made it in a factual point view. thank for your services, please message me if you have any questions. Mallie22 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I suggest that you read the pages linked from the posts that I have left. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220704210019/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redrose64

Leave a Reply