User talk:Charlesdrakew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Repeated deletion of text on Wikipedia page on the village Terling[edit]

Why do you consistently remove information about the life of the village? You have deleted it wholesale on the premise that it is 'unsourced trivia'. First: all information on Wikipedia could be adequately described as trivia. What is trivia, if not information that is mildly interesting? I can't understand why you believe you have an absolute right to unilaterally remove information from the page simply because it is not of interest to you. The purpose of you characterising 'information' as mere 'trivia' is clearly to belittle it, but there is nothing objectively less valid about the text that you are repeatedly removing than any that you have not deemed, in your sole opinion, to be 'trivia' and therefore unworthy of you. Consistently removing text that is pertinent and accurate simply because you do not like it is mere vandalism. You are not the sole arbiter of what does and does not belong on that page, you act imperiously but without mandate, and your personal prejudices are not relevant and should not enter the equation. The second half of your pretext for removal is that it is 'unsourced'. In answer to your valid criticism, in my latest edit I inserted a large number of sources. Frankly, I did not expect it to make any difference, and my suspicions were confirmed by the rapidity with which you again vandalised the page.

I ask you now, please to leave the page alone, and to makle constructive and useful amendments, rather than simply destroying other editors' work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.116 (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for 12 years and made over 50,000 edits. I am not going to be told what I may or may not do by an IP with a few edits. Please add your talk page comments at the bottom of the page.Charles (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Charles, no one is telling you want to do- I merely request that you stop doing it. The fact that you have been editing Wikipedia for 12 years is not really relevant- it doesn't give you any special rights. You seem to feel that you have a sense of entitlement just because you have done this a lot. The frequency of your posting and editing is irrelevant- an amendment is either pertinent or it isn't. The fact that the only grist you can add to your mill is to aggrandise your own importance by proclaiming your 12 years of editing/meddling, and belittling mine because I have the temerity to be but an infrequent editor is akin to a playground argument that "You have to do as I say, I'm older than you". Congratulations on your 12 years of deleting other people's content from Wikipedia. You must feel very proud and fulfilled. Unfortunately you have mistaken your self-importance for genuine importance: you have no authority here, you're just a meddler like the rest of us. Meddle usefully or kindly desist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.40 (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Homeward Bound Article[edit]

Please stop undoing my edit's regarding the station that it is regarded where Paul Simon wrote the song Homeward Bound unless you can provide information that Ditton station IS NOT the main line to London and that Widnes station is NOT the Liverpool to Manchester line. Paul Simon would logically have travelled to Ditton station as he was travelling to London, not Manchester. Surly you understand this. My cite provides information regarding the Liverpool to London line. Steved1973 (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course I understand it. I am not stupid. You cannot say Simon wrote the song at Ditton on that basis. It is original research and unverifiable without a reliable source saying he was there. For all we know he may have gone to the nearest railway station assuming there would be trains to London and thought of the song before finding he was in the wrong place. This was before information technology, mobile phones and the internet.Charles (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Banastre Tarleton[edit]

You reverted an edit I made to the Banastre Tarleton page on the grounds it was unexplained. Yet I did explain it in talk, under "Robert Bass biography." The nicknames for Tarleton are are not historically factual, but twentieth century inventions.Polkadreamer (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You could have explained that in the edit summary.Charles (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

45596, 48151 & 61306 info[edit]

Info/references regarding the locos moves to their respective sites is included in the updated info. 45596 also worked it's debut railtours from the KWVR on the 9th & 16th Feb.http://www.bahamaslocomotivesociety.com/

How long is this source page likely to endure before link rot sets in? This is ephemeral information and not really encyclopedic material. Wikipedia is not your or your organisation's blog.Charles (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation[edit]

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update[edit]

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019[edit]

Previous issue:

Single-page portals: 4,704
Total portals: 5,705

This issue:

Single-page portals: 4,562
Total portals: 5,578

The collection of portals has shrunk[edit]

All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
  4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
  5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
  6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
  4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
  5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
  6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
  7. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
  8. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
  9. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
  10. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
  11. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
  12. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
  13. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
  14. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
  15. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
  16. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
  17. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
  18. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
  19. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
  20. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
  21. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
  22. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
  23. Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)

WikiProject Quantum portals[edit]

This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).

It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.

Hiatus on mass creation of Portals[edit]

At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.

The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 months[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.

Until next issue...[edit]

Keep on keepin' on.    — The Transhumanist   10:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Adoption[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia. I just joined yesterday and I want to know more about Wikipedia's features and all that. While I do know about how to use userboxes for example, I wanna know more. So, can you give me a tour around Wikipedia? If so, I would greatly appreciate that. Scrooosh (talk · contribs) 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Scrooosh. It is good to have a Hungarian here. You like dance too and I am a Ballroom and Latin dancer. You can start at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia. The teahouse has editors who know technical things better than I do. I will be interested to see how you are doing.Charles (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Charles, thanks for the tip and fast response! I'll be sure to go on over Teahouse. :) --Scrooosh (talk · contribs) 19:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Reversion[edit]

I note you reverted my edit last night on page First Glasgow with the reason given 'Rv unsourced', however I had included a citation to an online source. The only bit I can think of that was specifically unsourced was the list of routes and their colour-specific branding, however this was simply re-wording existing text on the article (I felt it read poorly and contained errors - it now remains on the article unsourced). Is that why the edit was reversed, or was the source I provided insufficient? I would appreciate an explanation so I can avoid making the same mistake again! FbiZinc (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The source given is an in-house promotional piece which mentions 75 new buses, not 150 as stated in the text. It says nothing about colour coding for different routes. The latter is trivial and recentist and seems to be original research.Charles (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy reply and for looking into this. The orders were announced separately, i.e. 2 batches of 75, totalling 150. I could have cited both articles, but I thought that would have been duplication. Putting aside the colour-coding, which was already (and is still) within the article unsourced (should this not be boldly deleted?), is the section I wrote worthy of inclusion? I was trying to explain a noticeable and significant change that readers may want information on, it also explains that route branding that other editors were already placing in the article as a continuation of the SimpliCITY section which is entirely unsourced. I could provide citations to other sources, i.e. not First, for example media or environmental websites. If I did that, should I include them alongside the official company article, or instead of? But there's no point in me going to that work if it will be again subject to swift reversion! I am only an infrequent editor so I do appreciate your guidance. FbiZinc (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes the new buses are worth including if properly sourced. A source for each batch is not duplication. I do not consider the colour coding encyclopedic even if reliably sourced. It is trivial, ephemeral and tends towards being a guide.Charles (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again Charles. I've also now learnt how to indent replies! FbiZinc (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:Bonner16 (Result: ). Thank you. User:Bonner16 (talk) 17:40, 06 April 2019 (UTC)

Length of rivers[edit]

I recall you mentioning the length of the Rhine being given incorrectly for a time. I just came across Length which whilst being unsourced has a ring of truth. I expect there is some similar convention concerning winterbournes? Yours.SovalValtos (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You have got me there. I have no knowledge of this. The problem with the Rhine was that two numbers had been transposed by an ancient typo and that figure was copied between reference sources.Charles (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
What amused me was the thought that someone might want to include some computer program to adjust the length of rivers live in Wikipedia articles, depending on the state of tide, and hence the visible course, or the winterbourne flow state! Little things please little minds.... Yes, the typo and your mention of it have guided me to be critical when looking at sources. Thanks SovalValtos (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Jack1985IE (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)