User talk:Charlesdrakew

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Toca Boca

Hi! I'm drafting my first article on a game development studio called Toca Boca. I was wondering if you could point out any accidental bias, tone, or things that could be improved.

User:Bananasoldier/Toca Boca

Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the references are from the company's own website and one is a blog which is not regarded as a reliable source. There do seem to be enough third party sources to establish notability though. The general tone looks OK to me. The more third party sources you can find the better. I am no expert on this type of subject so I recommend submitting it to articles for creation by adding the template {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. Editors experienced in checking new articles will then look it over. It will take a while though.--Charles (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Bananasoldier (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

River Rother, West Sussex

Hi. I know it is a long time since you wrote "The river is partially fed by springs in the scarp slope of the chalk strata of the South Downs which flow at a constant volume and temperature throughout the year. This gives a more stable summer flow than is found in the upper reaches of the Arun, which drains more clay soils" in the River Rother article (it was in 2007). However, I wondered if you could remember the source for this information, as I am trying to improve the article, and this is now the only paragraph which is unreferenced. If you can help, that would be great. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just wanted to say wow, well done Bob - fantastic expansion of this article. Makes me want to go and look at it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC) (now reverting to Lurk Mode)

And a great job on the River Arun too. Good catch with the spelling on Petworth Canal. Spelling never was my strong point. I will think about the above question. May be from a comparison with the Arun in one of Vine's books or to be honest it may be original research. It is true as fish farms and water cress growers rely on this but I am not sure how to verify it.--Charles (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have managed to obtain a copy of "London's Lost Route to Midhurst" by Vine, and have eliminated that as a source for the info. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a copy somewhere but cannot find it right now. looking though The Arun Navigation.--Charles (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now tracked down the Catchment Area Management Strategy (published by EA 2003), which supports a more stable flow in the summer, but does not mention constant volume and temperature, so I have reworked the entire Hydrology section in the light of that document. I hope that is ok. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely fine and great work. I think it was the owner of the trout hatchery at Duncton who told me about the constant volume and temperature of the supply there. These springs along the bottom of the scarp slope come from deep in the chalk strata and are not affected by short term rainfall changes. I suspect that is why there is a string of villages all along the escarpment even where they do not get much sun in winter. That is all original research of course and should not have been included.--Charles (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

Hello! I am a user of the Russian Wikipedia. I am translated this article into Russian because article in the Russian Wikipedia is very bad. I have a question: What is a damaging? Is amazing maybe? Senior Strateg (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Senior. I am not sure I understand your question. Damaging is something that can cause or is causing damage to something. Not amazing. Perhaps you can point out where it says this?--Charles (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Sorry! I don't know what I thinked. The penny dropped. Sorry. Senior Strateg (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

First York

Okay I will leave off the tables for this page for now but will continue to update it as it has stuff about York has FTR Buses running on 4, Main FTR Section left on. BickerJ (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You are blocked user Josh24B.--Charles (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me I am not a Sock of anybody and I was only making Contibs and I am NEW but I can still suggest things but You are more experienced than me so I will trust you on some of my edits. Thanks. BickerJ (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to a laughable message left on my talk page

"Hard-working and productive"? You seem to have miss-spelled troublesome, belligerent, unreasonable and hard-headed. And "unprovoked"? At least pay attention to the situation at hand before commenting on it. As for labelling it "harrassment", I suggest you read again - I was merely ensuring that he wasn't up to his old tricks, and reminding him that I will be carefully observing his edits should he suffer a relapse with regards to his bad-practice ways. Not only is this kind of message acceptable, it is actively encouraged - as opposed to your unwarranted intrusions.

I suggest you watch your step yourself. Your sockpuppetry is unbelievably transparent (a rather swift and overly-sympathetic response to a non-issue on an allegedly unrelated account, don't you think?) and such behaviour will result in sanctions should you expose yourself.

I suggest you pick your battles more carefully. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I repeat that your returning from more than a months absence from editing to launch an unprovoked and gratuitous goading attack on a good faith editor is unacceptable. It does not make for a pleasant working environment. Please read WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility and learn to edit in a collaborative manner. I will ignore the nonsense about sock puppetry for now as it is too silly to take seriously.--Charles (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And I repeat, reminding a bad-faith, bad-practice editor to behave (in good faith, mind you) after his unprovoked and silly attempt at goading is not only acceptable, but encouraged. You would do well to remember that.

If you are complaining about an unpleasant working environment, take it up with him. His obstinacy, bloody-mindedness and utter refusal to communicate is nothing but a blight on this encyclopaedia. I am reminding him that actions such as his are utterly unacceptable, and that I shall be watching to ensure that he does not make the same egregious mistakes elsewhere.

Please read WP:No personal attacks yourself, and then read my comments. I have merely made objective criticisms of his bad practice, as opposed to attacking him personally. This is also in line with WP:Civility.

Your failure to work collaboratively yourself makes your claim nothing short of amusing. After all, I was the one who worked collaboratively and constructively with other users, whereas you were the one arrogantly attempting to impose your own POV on wikipedia. Your comments here really are too daft to take seriously.

You cannot ignore talk of sockpuppetry, because it is so staggeringly obvious that it beggars belief. Your denial of such a clear truth is nothing short of ridiculous - it is quite undeniable now. If you wish to simply "ignore" the issue, then please refrain from using sockpuppets to bother good-faith users.

Please learn your lesson this time. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Writings regarding Science Studies

(NOTE: Sorry if I'm not using the talk page correctly. I've never used one before.)

To Charlesdrakew,

Being a big fan of science myself, I have found it a bit frustrating that people have started treating science as if it is some sort of religion and everything spoken by a scientist is fact.

The reason this frustrates me is due to the simple fact that the only reason science exists is because people had the ability to question the norm and not accept petty indoctrination.

When you undid my change to that one article, I was removing the term "scientific fact", which I wish I could remove from all of Wikipedia, because it portrays scientists and magical no-it-all leaders.

Everything in science always changes. We always discovered new things invalidating what we believed before. For example, Euler's first law, a physics law that we still teach in science class today, has been shown to not be completely accurate. We still teach it, because it's very close to accurate.

I fail to see how removing this term out of pages is not constructive. Examining pages like this, I feel that Wikipedia is giving off a subjective vibe rather than an objective one. The text written in the articles seems bias to what is actually true and using terms that are not even accepted by scientists themselves.

I also fail to see how linking to an article on "scientific fact" written on Wikipedia that is poorly constructed is, well, constructive to the page at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.184.63 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not interested.--Charles (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fishbourne

Thanks for helpfully deleting my link to the friends of fishbourne. It could be interesting to some people, so "not needed" seems a bit harsh. Where would you suggest we put such a link? Scalloway (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't tempt me!

But seriously, if you think the link is compatible with our policy on external links you can propose on the article talk page that it be re-added.--Charles (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bus Routes

Is my page List of bus routes in Soham notable? Englandtransport (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not have any reliable secondary sources so no it is not notable.--Charles (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it at risk of deletion? Englandtransport (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL you will see that Wikipedia does not want to be a travel guide. We have Wikivoyage for that. This is on top of the lack of secondary sources causing the article to fail WP:GNG. For these reasons any such list of non-notable routes is at risk of deletion. You may also like to have a look at UK Transport Wiki on Wikia where enthusiasts can make all the lists they like.--Charles (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do see why list of bus routes are not notable. Blue Square Thing on the deletion notice said that, for example, Buses in Lowestoft are more notable than any lists. Do you believe that it is worth my time working on these types of pages as they are less likely to get deleted or changing over to trains? Sorry for asking so many questions but as you can see I fairly new and still have not quite got to grips with notability. By the way what is SPI as you believe I have one shown below. Is it because too many of my pages have been deleted. 20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englandtransport (talk • contribs) I did place a signature here! This bot must have made an error.

There are some excellent articles on buses such as Routemaster and others I can not find right now. It all depends on the availability of published secondary sources of course. I am interested in karate but some of the finest karate masters I have trained with do not have Wikipedia articles because it is mostly a word of mouth tradition and published books and newspaper or magazine articles are scarce. A year or two ago lists of bus routes usually survived AfD because of failure to reach consensus. Now it seems that consensus has swung against keeping such lists and it looks likely they will all go in time. Whether they will move to WikiVoyage or just disappear altogether I do not yet know. I think you will find that trains are more tightly controlled for notability and encyclopedic value than buses have been in the past.--Charles (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So good to see commonsense prevail. A good place to point bus spotters to, away from Wikipedia is the UK Transport Wiki at Wikia. They can wikifiddle away to their hearts content there without the pesky rules that we have here. --Bob Re-born (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Englandtransport (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Great Walstead School

Hello Charlesdrakew I am the "vandal" who recently twice edited a section in the Great Walstead entry Would you be willing to enter into an email correspondence with the Headmaster at GreatWalstead? If so, could you kindly let me have your email address kind regards

• email address removed - thank you*

80.189.50.216 (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Whitewashing an entry in Wikipedia simply does not happen. I am placing this here in case the IP user sees it. Since he may also look here, I think he needs to be aware that individual wikipedia editors do not tend to engage in email correspondence about articles. Tough as it may be to see this in the article, and I have reverted similar removals (which is why I am commenting here), the facts are cited in reliable sources. An approach to take might be to ask Maggie Dennis to talk to him as the liaison person? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have just left a talkback message on the IP talk page to notify that there is a reply here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have raised this on Maggie's talk page Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have left a note on the talk page of the IP pointing to OTRS. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent. I was going to point out that I do have e-mail enabled but if they have anything to say they can say it here. The headmaster of the school obviously has a strong conflict of interest and should stick to using the article talkpage to request any changes to the article.--Charles (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In view of your comments, the IP editor's actions and my thoughts I have set up a discussion about the controversy section on the school's talk page. It seems to me that a consensus might be built proactively for the retention or removal of that section. I have done my best to notify them, and now I am making sure you know as well. My own interest in the article is peripheral. I am neutral over the section and incident as a part of the school's history and article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Up Marden

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A bus spotter speaks

Hi, not sure how to message here on wiki at all, but you queried my Countryliner edit. I should know on Monday 28/1/13 the status of bus 41 with sources. I think it was indeed Fleet Buzz from last Monday but ordinary Stagecoach buses have been in use for this first week.

Route 479:- Surrey CC still show the operator to be Sunray Travel and a photo I took this week, posted to flickr confirms this also. The operator has no web site or facebook page.

Ray 02:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Click58away (talk • contribs)

Before I reply, note that I moved your comments to the bottom of Charle's talk page per the normal convention.

I suggest that you read WP:OR, which deals with original research - something that is forbidden on Wikipedia. Personal knowledge is original research. The truth can also be original research if it is not supported by reliable sources (WP:RS). --Bob Re-born (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from what Bob says, which is very true, Wikipedia is just not interested in what bus was on route 479 last week. It is not notable or what Wikipedia is intended for.--Charles (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Bus Routes in York (sigh!).... Best. --GuillaumeTell 18:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I have reverted for now and will have to report it to SPI yet again if it continues. Consensus at AfD is now very much for deleting this type of list so it may go anyway before long.--Charles (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles, not sure if this is related, but I've just rolled back 3 edits since I could find no SPI case against the user upon whose page those edits were made. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There is now. The sock puppetry is obvious and one more of many. Where does this guy keep finding new IPs?--Charles (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you mean. No Englandtransport is not a sockpuppet I think.--Charles (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)