Jump to content

User talk:Charlesdrakew

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Attaboy (talk | contribs) at 15:04, 22 September 2015 (→‎Irreducible complexity: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I've decided that I like to keep conversations together. So...
  • If you are here to respond to something I've posted on your talk page, feel free to reply there as I will have watchlisted your page.
  • If you leave a message here on my talkpage I'll respond here unless you ask me to do something different. Thanks!

Hi Charles,

I have made a contribution to the Wiki page on the Norfolk Broads which it appears you have edited by removing it in its entirety. Perhaps you could explain why. Could you also explain your position to me as it appears from other messages that you edit a lot of contributions to Wiki. Thanks Tony Bennett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobenn (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobenn: Well, if you read his message on your talk page it obviously says that you included unreferenced material. --A talkpage stalker 00:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the new WikiProject Hampshire!

Greetings!

The flag of Hampshire

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Hampshire! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Hampshire.

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Can you provide some context for us at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Can_someone_blocked_this_user_.28charlesdrakew.29? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of closure

Please read WP:NACD, I quote: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures." Please restore my closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of night buses in London (2nd nomination). If you disagree with it, there are two ways to proceed. Either you take it to WP:DRV or to WP:AN. Kraxler (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be reverting. This is a case where commonsense should take priority over a guideline. There is no clear consensus to keep. Merging and renaming have also been proposed. This should remain open for others to comment until an admin uses their wisdom to properly close it.Charles (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#NAC undone by AfD nominator, again. Please read again WP:NACD: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures." We have guidelines, Wikipedia is not your private playground. Kraxler (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The latter comment is just plain offensive.Charles (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the diagram and then answer to yourself the question at the bottom (re-phrased to cover this issue) "Did the change from "keep" to "no consensus" improve the encyclopedia?" (You needn't tell me, just answer to yourself.) Then see the instruction which should be followed, according to your answer. Farewell, for now. Kraxler (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just admit you got it wrong?Charles (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the SMRT Buses Deployment, I'm also working inside as employee.

http://sgwiki.com/wiki/SMRT_Bus_Deployments Johnlyh77 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you have a conflict of interest.Charles (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the train guy also try claiming to be an employee? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bus guy in York did. I don't remember a specific train guy. There are too many to remember.Charles (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, Transdev. Could only (mis-)remember the first syllable and this Onion article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides this website, this also have the SMRT Buses Article (model) https://publictransportsg.wordpress.com/bus-models/ When people make an effort to upload bus model in SMRT Buses, please investigate whatever is true or not before making decisions. Don't just deleted it like that.

No indication of that being a reliable published source.Charles (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 434

Hi there, I noticed you reverted my edit on this page. I decided to create and expand it because I knew a lot about the route and vehicles and nobody had created a page about it. And the 404 has its own page, that is a similar route to the 434. I spent 4 hours working on this page, and then you go and undo all my hard work! Why?? I have since reverted your edit Class455fan1 (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)Class455fan1[reply]

Because most bus routes are not notable for a stand alone article. Your personal knowledge is beside the point. If you can show how the route meets WP:GNG it might survive a discussion at AfD, which is where it will go if recreated.Charles (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does route 404 have its own stand alone article?? This is just like the 434! Class455fan1 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore.Charles (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd quite like to know why you have a personal vendetta against buses. 86.152.47.59 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against buses. They are a relatively environmentally friendly form of transport and a good thing.Charles (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you seem to want to deny the public good access to information about them on WP. 86.152.47.59 (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastleigh

If someone adds something unsourced but not BLP, offensive, or implausible, please don't delete it. Add the {{cn}} template, or try to find a source yourself. I've sourced and expanded the section which you removed. Thanks. PamD 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you left a note on the editor's page to say that you removed the information because it "appeared to be incorrect". What evidence did you have for that? OK it was inexact (the Kimri link is a "Friendship link" rather than a twinning): was that what you meant? Or what? PamD 17:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although the onus is on the person adding information to find the sources I did check the twinning association website and it was not listed as twinned. It seems however I had not scrolled down far enough.Charles (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't explain why you reverted what was apparently a good faith addition, rather than adding the {{cn}} template. If you felt that its apparent absence from a specific list of twinning showed it to be incorrect, it would have been helpful to explain - for the sake of the editor who added it and other passers-by (or page-watchers). Please don't just delete content with the edit summary "No evidence for this". PamD 21:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is better for people to understand from the start that they are responsible for verifying what they add, rather than leaving other busy editors to do the work. That is better than leaving a potential hoax on the page level 1 warning is very polite and should not put off anyone who is serious about contributing. You do it your way and I will do it mine.Charles (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you removed it as a "potential hoax", despite the fact that googling "Eastleigh Kimry" finds hits galore. Have you heard of WP:AGF? And WP:BITE? Please be more encouraging to new editors, rather than accusing them of adding incorrect information. There's a reason why the {{cn}} template exists: please use it. PamD 14:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Premier

Hi there

Thank you for the message.

Firstly can I say that what has been happening at Premier recently is trying to be covered up when in fact sources close to Premier have confirmed what I have included. Secondly the majorty of what is written on the whole page has no reference to its content. I have not written anything that isn't true and this website is supposed to be full of information. The fact the company in question is trying to hide this is not my fault. As a drummer myself I must say it isn't right that the company makes no statement about their product line and yet still decides to advertise things which are no longer made on their website. Please keep the information I have included on here up as it is both accurate and informative. I will reference this article on my edit soon however which covers most of what I have said:

http://www.thedrummersjournal.com/blog/premier-percussion

Regards Premierdrumsfan (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to reliable published third party sources such as newspaper or magazine articles to verify this. Otherwise it will not stay. Blogs are not regarded as reliable sources.Charles (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drummer's Journal is not a blog it is a respected online magazine. Keith, former head of R&D at Premier, has also openly spoken about this on social media and so are you suggesting this is not true? As Premier has refused to publish and official statement as yet about the news there is no other source that can be linked. So as I have said my source is a reliable one which I have uploaded as requested. Please do not remove my edits again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premierdrumsfan (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines are not turning up anything on the newish Drummer's Journal site beyond its own social media links and the odd blog post. Nothing independent. There is no indication of who it is published by. Seems self-published. For all we know it is your own site. Do you have a conflict of interest here? You seem to have created a Wikipedia account for the sole purpose of promoting this website. Wikipedia does not use social media and self-published sources for referencing.Charles (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hello, Charlesdrakew. I just noticed you're one of the users offering to adopt a user in the adopt-a-user project, and I wondered whether I could be adopted by you. Even though I've edited quite a lot, before I made an account I never really went into the specifics of editing- just minor spelling mistakes and the occasional vandal revert, so I want to know more about editing here on Wikipedia. Thanks, Dakaryammer
stuff done 00:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You seem to be doing alright anyway and I am too busy to do any formal programme, but I am happy to help anyway I can. For technical stuff you are probably better asking at the Teahouse.Charles (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design

That talk page is becoming a posterboy for forums. It is getting out of hand. Can you do something to end it? Please. Juan Riley (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin so I can do no more than any other editor. We just have to keep pointing out the talk page rules.Charles (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NSW Station changes

What do you think of the changes user ‎Mqst north is making to such stations as Minnamurra railway station and Kiama railway station?Fleet Lists (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mqst north has added history from reliable secondary sources, replaced bullet point unencyclopedic lists with prose, removed unsourced stuff. All seems positive to me. Wikipedia is ,after all, an encyclopedia, taking a longer term overview, not an up-to-the-minute travel directory.Charles (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOUTHEND AIRPORT

Good morning Charles You kindly emailed me regarding my insertion into the above regarding Macedonian Aviation operation's at Southend airport in the 1970s. They are many points of reference but probably the most comprehensive is on the Airfield Information Exchange site and herr is the reference to Macedonian Aviation from May and June 2014 from Khormaksar Boy and The Welbeck Estate Group and here is the link. http://www.airfieldinformationexchange.org/community/showthread.php?1363-Rochford-Southend/page6 regards Byron Collins email: rogcoll@msn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.67.46 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not e-mailed you.Charles (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bentworth Stream

Please could you look at Bentworth Stream and its talk. I am sure it should be deleted, but do not want to do so myself. SovalValtos (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irreducible complexity

You recently reverted my edits on irreducible complexity without explanation or discussion on the talk page. My edits were explained on the talk page and there was no response to my request for comment, so I proceeded with the changes. If you would like to discuss my changes, please join the conversation on the talk page. Attaboy (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charlesdrakew&oldid=682255174"