User talk:Redrose64
|
Redrose64 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Help: Section, revert
[edit]Hi Redrose64, You just reverted my edit to Help:Section and I don't understand what's going on. Have I set a preference somewhere that's forcing my sections to say "[edit source]" rather than "[edit]"? It changed a few months ago and I hadn't done anything to change it, so I assumed it was just a wiki thing. I've brought it up as an edit request on the Help:Preferences talk page, so I wonder if anyone will be able to explain the anomaly for me. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Rodney Baggins: I wasn't sure so I logged out (in order to get the default settings for the majority of readers and many editors), went to the Main Page, clicked an article link (such as migratory in the TFA blurb) and looked at the section headings. They all have "[edit]". If you are seeing "[edit source]" when logged in, I guess that it's one of the settings at Preferences. If you are seeing it when logged out, I can't explain it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm always logged in (via a laptop) and seeing "[edit source]" when logged in. Have thoroughly checked all preference options and can't find it, so I guess I'll just have to live with it. Not a problem in the grand scheme of things, just another one of life's great mysteries... Thanks anyway. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2025 disestablishments in North America
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:2025 disestablishments in North America indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Locomotive infoboxes
[edit]Is there a limit on the number of operators in locomotive infoboxes? Am considering adding "Bluebell Railway (replica)" to the LB&SCR Class H2 article. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: There isn't, but we don't normally do it for preserved locos or replicas - see for example LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman and LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's a difference though, the replica is not mainline certified, so will be on the Bluebell for the forseeable future. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would still leave it out; other Bluebell locos such as BR Standard Class 5 73082 Camelot don't have it. LB&SCR A1X class 55 Stepney does, but that may be Thomas-fan cruft. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's a difference though, the replica is not mainline certified, so will be on the Bluebell for the forseeable future. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
About noinclude
[edit]You're generally correct here, but in this case it doesn't matter too much, since documentation pages are not typically transcluded anywhere. I'll skip the newline from now on, but it's not something worth fixing imo. Nickps (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Reopened 2021 RfC for Heterodox Academy
[edit]Hi Redrose64. I don't believe I've ever seen a RfC reopened other than when it was closed too quickly. There's no time limit if it wasn't formally closed? - Hipal (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hipal: I didn't reopen it. Is your question about my only two edits to that page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. From my perspective, your edits changed it from a discussion about an old RfC to reopening the RfC. Better if I check at Talk:RfC? --Hipal (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hipal: My first edit removed a duplicate signature, and replaced a faked timestamp with a genuine one. My second edit removed the extraneous code that is added by
{{subst:unsigned}}
, which causes difficulties for Legobot when it builds the RfC listing pages. How could either of those edits be construed as havingchanged it from a discussion about an old RfC to reopening the RfC
? The RfC was reopened in this edit by Aquillion (talk · contribs), specifically by adding the{{rfc|pol|soc}}
. Why would you think that was my doing? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)- I apologize. My mistake. I didn't see that edit by Aquillion. Thank you for digging into the chain of events and finding what I overlooked. --Hipal (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's all in the page history. This shows who made edits and when they were done; the "prev" links reveal exactly what was done in any given edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. As you can see from it, I did some cleanup after the RfC was first copied to the page. There was a flurry of activity and I overlooked it when trying to catch up on the 57 subsequent edits. The page doesn't usually have such activity. --Hipal (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's all in the page history. This shows who made edits and when they were done; the "prev" links reveal exactly what was done in any given edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize. My mistake. I didn't see that edit by Aquillion. Thank you for digging into the chain of events and finding what I overlooked. --Hipal (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hipal: My first edit removed a duplicate signature, and replaced a faked timestamp with a genuine one. My second edit removed the extraneous code that is added by
- Yes. From my perspective, your edits changed it from a discussion about an old RfC to reopening the RfC. Better if I check at Talk:RfC? --Hipal (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
How did you get the special colour name?
[edit]I’m guessing you need to be really special for it but I’m wondering because EENg has it and others. Mcflurry2212 (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- What special colour name? Valid colour names are described at web colours but only one of them is described as a special color - it is
transparent
. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)- @Mcflurry2212 are you referring to the colours in Redrose's signature? There's no special requirements, anyone with an account can customise their signature by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. the wub "?!" 21:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Template:Cite xxx/doc
[edit]Can this revert be explained please? 142.113.140.146 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's a convenience link, mainly used in help, project and discussion pages, its only use is as {{cite xxx}} which provides a link to examples of cite template usage. The template has no other purpose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Protocol?
[edit]I went to leave you a message here, as you requested, but the above tells me to leave it on my talk page - so I have done.
I'll try to see if I can "add it to my watchlist" but I'm not a user of chat pages - I only joined Wikipedia to rectify a defect! Ryderailer (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
[edit]Hello User:Redrose64, Thank you for your guidance,
Regarding the proper location of rfc|pol|rfcid=506FBD9, I will remember your advice. Fyi, I want to clarify my previous suggestion to move the voting section. When a post mentions that consensus hasn't been reached through voting, I believe it might be misinterpreted as voting being unnecessary. To avoid confusion, I think it would be helpful to explicitly remind users that they can still vote or comment. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
Thank you for helping to quell the sockpuppetry here. I would like to ask, though -- should we really be tagging the sockpuppets in this case? This seems to be LTA trolling territory, and I think not tagging would be better per WP:DENY, though I would like to hear your input as an administrator. Thanks, JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @JeffSpaceman: They help to judge whether a newly-discovered suspect is the same individual as the other offenders. By setting up the category page as the link, we can compare aditing patterns. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I discussed this at a different admin talk page (here, if you want to take a look), and it basically came to the exact same conclusion. I do get what both of you mean, and I'm happy to hear your perspective as an administrator. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Doctor Who/doc
[edit]Template:WikiProject Doctor Who/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Underwater diving/doc
[edit]Template:WikiProject Underwater diving/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
WIkiProject Doctor Who: September 2024 Newsletter
[edit]The Space-Time Telegraph
Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who You like Doctor Who? What's his name then? Welcome
Articles for deletion
Notice of Draft Articles
Doctor Who News
Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content
Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject
Contributors
"I'm not appalled by it" - The New New York Times If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.
If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Good Morning
[edit]Waiting for sun rise Vmworld21 (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
hab/cot
[edit]Thanks for this, Redrose64. I didn't realise it was actually "improper" :) but could you clarify the differences in the two templates for that kind of situation? I've never really considered it, but if asked, I would probably assume them to be interchangeable. Thoughts? SerialNumber54129 18:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Apart from the colour, there's no difference until you go for the "show" link. At that point,
{{hat}}
says "The following discussion has been closed",{{cot}}
doesn't. The red colour and the message suggest "nothing to see here, collapse it again and move on", but in the place you were using it, it's very much a relevant part of a keep vote. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)- Right, I see. Never even realised that! Thanks for the info, I'll bear that in mind for the future. SerialNumber54129 20:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for reverting your edit to my RfC request on Talk:Australian Survivor
[edit]I didn't realise you reverted it until just now, I thought I had signed twice by mistake, that's why I removed the inital signature, now I understand why you did it, because it needs to be brief and because the RfC page can't accept tables.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 10:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The R and RP templates were already in use, as can be seen in the last version prior to @Trainsfan13’s edits - how do their edits violate CITEVAR if they’re using templates that were already in use? Danners430 (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Only since this edit, which I would have partially-reverted if I had spotted it at the time that it happened. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- An, that was a while ago so I forgot about it
- I have to ask though - since there appears to be no way whatsoever to alter the citation variation (and by the way it appears I followed the process discussed with that edit - make the edit, and since it didn’t get reverted there wasn’t a problem), what IS the process if someone feels a different variation of citations is better? At the moment it does almost feel like people gatekeeping such changes and completely barring them… Danners430 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Start a discussion on the article's talk page. Demonstrate that the referencing method(s) used in the article as it currently stands are unsatisfactory. Present evidence that your preferred method is more suitable to the article than current methods. Be prepared to discuss with anybody else who comes in. You may attract the attention of others by leaving a note at e.g. WT:UKRAIL (also the talk pages of other WikiProjects whose banners are at the top of the talk page) inviting people to comment - templates such as
{{fyi}}
and{{subst:please see}}
are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Start a discussion on the article's talk page. Demonstrate that the referencing method(s) used in the article as it currently stands are unsatisfactory. Present evidence that your preferred method is more suitable to the article than current methods. Be prepared to discuss with anybody else who comes in. You may attract the attention of others by leaving a note at e.g. WT:UKRAIL (also the talk pages of other WikiProjects whose banners are at the top of the talk page) inviting people to comment - templates such as
Template:Ribble Valley Line
[edit]Since your last amendment on this template, someone has deleted Goosehouse railway station that was stated to have been opened 1847-1849.
I am sure that you, with your deep knowledge of the area in question, would have made that change already if you had any reason to doubt its validity, so can you please reinstate it.
Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Xenophon Philosopher: Butt (1995) does list the station with those dates, on the Bolton, Blackburn, Clitheroe and West Yorkshire Railway. But I can't find any mention of it in Marshall (1969), who doesn't describe any passenger stations between [Over] Darwen and Lower Darwen. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Merge help
[edit]Hello Redrose64 thank you for the tips on merging. I'm trying to help clear the backlog of requests. I'll keep your pointers in mind as I keep working on it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qalb alasid (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Category:2024 crimes in Mexico
[edit]Thank you so much for fixing this double categorization. I had no idea how it happened nor any clue on how to fix it. Thanks for catching it! Nayyn (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Nayyn: Basically, I looked at other similar categories - such as Category:2023 crimes in Mexico, Category:2022 crimes in Mexico, Category:2024 crimes in the United States, Category:2024 crimes in Ecuador - to see what was in the page source, and found that all of them used exactly the same code, i.e.
{{YYYY crimes in countryname category header}}
. Therefore, I edited Category:2024 crimes in Mexico, and replaced everything in there with{{YYYY crimes in countryname category header}}
and saved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)- many thanks again Nayyn (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
External link on The Brain of Morbius
[edit]Hello. Could you explain why my use of this external link is improper and what you meant by "query string" please ? Spectritus (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article, per Wikipedia:External links. We also do not use external link format to link to Wikipedia in other languages, see Help:Interlanguage links.
- In a URL such as https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Baker?wprov=sfla1 the query string is the part after the ? (query) character. In this case, it's documented at wikitech:Provenance, but I really don't think that it's being used properly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Colons in syntaxhighlight tag
[edit]why do people keep using colons inside syntaxhighlight? They don't indent, but are displayed literally
. In case you're curious, it's a bug in Visual Editor. There's a phab ticket for it somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
[edit]- Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2025 disestablishments in North America
[edit]A tag has been placed on Category:2025 disestablishments in North America indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 23:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Explicit: Although I created the original version of this page, the page logs show that the most recent two incarnations were created by Daniel James Mcmahon (talk · contribs). Judging by the other categories that they have created (several of which have been deleted again), this user seems intent on WP:CRYSTALBALLing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
About members of one direction to be past members
[edit]Hello, could u elaborate why you put all of them to past members? because there's no statement about the group status, thank you Kayanad (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kayanad: There is an ongoing discussion on that exact matter at Talk:One Direction#RfC: Band status and members in the infobox, so for the time being the article should not be changed until there is consensus in that discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
MOS:NOBR - North Kent Line
[edit]Hi there, thanks for your edit summary note on North Kent Line. I didn't change that formatting - the anonymous edit before mine did, and I was just patching up the broken part. However, I actually wasn't aware of the MOS:NOBR guideline, so thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Jessicapierce: The
{{ubl}}
template makes a list, the individual items of which are separated uning the pipe character. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Admin newsletter
[edit]Hi Redrose64 -- was there a reason you removed me from the admin newsletter subs? For the record, I'd prefer to receive it even if hibernating as I still intermittently check my talk page and on return it forms a convenient summary of issues of which I need to be aware. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict: Delivery of the October message failed, the log shows that you opted-out of message delivery. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing that I did??? I'm very confused now. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's probably a template at the top of your user talk page. Something like
{{nobots}}
, but not necessarily that specific one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's probably a template at the top of your user talk page. Something like
- Nothing that I did??? I'm very confused now. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Uw-spamublock
[edit]I don't understand what you meant by this edit summary. When I marked the ER as "already done", I was referring to this edit. Was I supposed to do what you did (i.e., change the title)? M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: Exactly: the first parameter is for the name of the page for which an edit is being requested, accordingly the OP had put
|Template:Uw-spamublock
. Since the edit was to Template:Uw-spamublock, you should not have altered it to|Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace
as nobody edited that page, nor intended that page to be edited. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- I see what happened: it was altered by the "Edit Request Tool", that's why I didn't notice it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I sent you one last night my time ... did you get it? Just asking now because time zones can be ... interesting. Graham87 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I've never started one of those before, so making it my first probably isn't a good idea. I would prefer that it be done properly, and so have a good chance of succeeding. In the past I might have suggested RexxS (talk · contribs) or Kudpung (talk · contribs). Try HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is this about the re-RfA? I'd be happy to, and Redrose can co-nom if he's happy. Redrose would do a better job of addressing the more technical things you use the tools for. You might have to agree to something regarding blocks, like not blocking anyone who hasn't been reported by another editor or similar but I think it's a winnable battle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it is about the re-RFA. Yes there'll be a very strong pledge re blocks ... and a refocus. That's why I was thinking of Redrose as a co-nom because he can speak to my technical work. You don't have to start the page, just say a few words about what I've done in that arena when the time comes. Or if you are most comfortable just putting these thoughts in a !support vote, that works too. @HJ Mitchell: yes, I'd be happy for you to co-nom me too, as a lead nom or however the cookie crumbles. I have a couple of other people lined up, but your thoughts would be good to add to the mix as well. Graham87 (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Harry, good to see you here. Graham87, I would like to see what you'd write up for the nomination before I sign on; obviously you can anticipate some of the questions and it would be good to work on some possible answers. You got my email; a group email with Redrose and Harry might be helpful. Harry, Redrose, just to be honest, I did not agree unconditionally, but we can talk about that. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging Vanamonde93, who I've also been conversing with. Now we're all here, and this'll end up being public anyway, I may as well say this now: I'll pledge not to block at all, just to report when I find another user's done something wrong. And I should find a lot less weird stuff once the watchlist cleanup I'm about to start is done. I don't have any strong opinions on where we should go from here in terms of who starts the page, etc., but some of you know the modern practice re that a huge amount better than I do so I'll defer to y'all. The main part of my nom acceptance (is that how it would work?) would basically be a paraphrase of what I said in this message. Graham87 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This seems very similar to my RfA - I passed as a technical admin with a similar but less strict pledge. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Watchlist purging done ... it's now 1,173 items (almost all articles) lighter ... much better! Graham87 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really do watchlist purging, but I'm quite discriminate about what gets on there in the first place. I'm at about 7,200 pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't either; this is my first full watchlist purge since 2007 and I've otherwise done only a couple of minor narrow topic ones. It's only got a few hundred active pages now. Graham87 (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really do watchlist purging, but I'm quite discriminate about what gets on there in the first place. I'm at about 7,200 pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Watchlist purging done ... it's now 1,173 items (almost all articles) lighter ... much better! Graham87 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This seems very similar to my RfA - I passed as a technical admin with a similar but less strict pledge. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also pinging Vanamonde93, who I've also been conversing with. Now we're all here, and this'll end up being public anyway, I may as well say this now: I'll pledge not to block at all, just to report when I find another user's done something wrong. And I should find a lot less weird stuff once the watchlist cleanup I'm about to start is done. I don't have any strong opinions on where we should go from here in terms of who starts the page, etc., but some of you know the modern practice re that a huge amount better than I do so I'll defer to y'all. The main part of my nom acceptance (is that how it would work?) would basically be a paraphrase of what I said in this message. Graham87 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Harry, good to see you here. Graham87, I would like to see what you'd write up for the nomination before I sign on; obviously you can anticipate some of the questions and it would be good to work on some possible answers. You got my email; a group email with Redrose and Harry might be helpful. Harry, Redrose, just to be honest, I did not agree unconditionally, but we can talk about that. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it is about the re-RFA. Yes there'll be a very strong pledge re blocks ... and a refocus. That's why I was thinking of Redrose as a co-nom because he can speak to my technical work. You don't have to start the page, just say a few words about what I've done in that arena when the time comes. Or if you are most comfortable just putting these thoughts in a !support vote, that works too. @HJ Mitchell: yes, I'd be happy for you to co-nom me too, as a lead nom or however the cookie crumbles. I have a couple of other people lined up, but your thoughts would be good to add to the mix as well. Graham87 (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is this about the re-RfA? I'd be happy to, and Redrose can co-nom if he's happy. Redrose would do a better job of addressing the more technical things you use the tools for. You might have to agree to something regarding blocks, like not blocking anyone who hasn't been reported by another editor or similar but I think it's a winnable battle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)