User talk:Charlesdrakew

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


Please respond to my message re Wog page. (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) This user has now changed IP's. Charles - the message this user is talking about can be found at User talk: Hope this helps. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what I need to be approved my editing... Mirkomaty (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user - your availability[edit]

Hello Charles I am really new and have primarily used the visual editor and am learning How to use the Markup Language. Could you adopt me? My area of focus is the Huntington family and their British ancestors and American descendants. Thank you! Jjjheart (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Could I ask you to check and, if necessary, update your availability details at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, please?

I've been updating that page, plus the list of over 100 people seeking adoption (which I've now stripped down to around 20 active editors genuinely seeking help.

I've been working to identify those Adopters who are currently available, and those who haven't been active on Wikipedia for a while. But I don't think the bot has been updating correctly, so a manual check from you would be really helpful. I've also made some suggestions and a few edits to make life easier for newcomers. I've put some of my observations down in answer to a recent post about inactivity of some Adopt-a-User Project contributors. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, i would like to be adopted (Arispol012)

No sorry, I have too much else going on at present.Charles (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

RAF numbers[edit]

Hi regarding the raf aircraft numbers you stated there are 301 operational aircraft however due to global firepower and the rest of the Wikipedia page there are actually 944 aircraft

Tom7972 (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not state anything. I reverted your unexplained and unsourced changes. Your edits were not minor edits either as they changed the meaning of the content. Always cite a reliable source when making changes.Charles (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleting others discussions is inappropriate[edit]

I see you felt my Talk at Objections to Evolution was not productive. And I can see someone may feel that way about it, or the three other posts there. And many others things in Talk in many articles.

However that’s not a good reason to delete them. And note that deleting it is contrary to TALKO. In article content deleting is fine — but not in Talk.

If you feel my input is not productive, please do add a comment to say so. We may discuss to something better, or you may convince me to strike out a prior post.

But unless someone’s post is outrageous enough to be a legal issue or something, it’s not appropriate to edit or delete someone else’s TALK.

Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Lipchis Way[edit]

You seemed only determined to remove facts from this site - have you appointed yourself editor? Many records exist and wikipedia would be a good place to record and encourage participation and record breaking. Other routes have runners / walkers records -what is your problem here? If you can't be productive, you may come across as over zealous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianstanleybutter (talkcontribs) 09:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the bloody article and it does not need self-promotors.Charles (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Using Wikipedia to record your own records is pretty nauseating, and cuts across pretty much everything we are here for. I suggest you try to edit it seriously, not use it as a vehicle for telling us how great you are. DBaK (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, too snarky, and therefore withdrawn with apologies. What I should have said was: I don't agree with your edit to the article, and I don't agree with your analysis of Charles's editing, motivation etc, which seems inappropriate. I respectfully suggest that you might want to continue discussing the edit, but without the personal comments, at the article's Talk page. Thanks DBaK (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Undoing edit to Hassocks page[edit]

Hello, you undid my edits to the Hassocks page concerning Zoella. I am not challenging your decision, just wondering why so I can become a better editor. Thanks!

There were two problems. You did not provide any reliable source that Zoella lives in Hassocks. That person's article says they live in Brighton. Secondly you added a hyperlink to an external website in the text, which is not allowed (see WP:EL).Charles (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


Hello, citations do not need to be provided if they are obvious. For example, when we write plot summaries for films, we do not need to provide an inline citation of the film in <ref> tags, because it is well-known by all readers of the articles that the film itself is the source. Likewise, in an article about Cardinal Newman, in the section specifically about his book, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, it is not necessary to make an inline citation to the book in a quote which already says that he wrote it in his book. So I am unsure why you and @Chris troutman: took such issue with me attempting to repair a WP:CATV violation: Newman was incorrectly listed in Category:Critics of atheism so I decided, instead of deleting the category, to repair the citation with a quote, which was properly cited all along. Sorry that it became such a big deal. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If you provide a page number in the book where this is stated it will be easier for editors to check if the quote is correct. We are not going to just take your word for it.Charles (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #010, 30 June 2018[edit]

We've grown to 94 participants.

A warm welcome to dcljr and Kpgjhpjm.

Rating system for portals[edit]

We are in the process of developing a rating system specifically for portals, as the quality assessment scheme for articles does not apply to portals. It is coming along nicely. Your input would be very helpful. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/General#Proposed new quality class assessments.

Better than a barnstar[edit]

One of our participants got involved with this WikiProject through interest in how the new generation of portals would be handled in WP's MOS (Manual of Style). It didn't take long before he got sucked in deeper. This has given him an opportunity to look around, and so, he has made an assessment of this WikiProject's operations:

I'm quite frankly really impressed and inspired by what's happening here. If you'd asked me a year ago if I thought portals should just be scrapped as a failed, dragged-out experiment, I would have said "yes". This planning and the progress toward making it all practical is exemplary of the wiki spirit, in particular of a happy service-to-readers puppy properly wagging its technological and editorial tail instead of the other way around, and without "drama". It's also one of the few examples I've seen in a long time of a new wikiproject actually doing something useful and fomenting constructive activity (instead of acting as a barrier to participation, and a canvassing/ownership farm for PoV pushers). Kudos all around. — SMcCandlish

Congratulations, everyone. Keep up the great work.

Slideshow development[edit]

We've run into a glitch with slideshows: they don't work on mobile devices.

Initially, we will need to explore options that allow portals to have slideshows without adversely affecting mobile viewers. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design#Mobile view support.

Eventually, we may need another way to do slideshows. If we do go this route, and I don't see why we wouldn't, then (user configurable) automatic slideshows also become a possibility.

TemplateStyles RfC passed[edit]

Once implemented, this will allow editors to create and edit cascading style sheets for use with templates. This will expand what we can do with portals. For more detail, see mw:Extension:TemplateStyles and Wikipedia:TemplateStyles.

Automation effort[edit]

We've run into an obstacle using Lua-based selective transclusion: Lua is incapable (on Wikipedia) of reading in article names from categories. Because of this, we'll need to seek other approaches for fully automating the Selected article section. We are exploring sources other than categories, and other technologies besides Lua.

Speaking of using other sources, the template {{Transclude list item excerpt}} collects list items from a specified page, or from a section of that page, and transcludes the lead from a randomly selected link from that list. Courtesy of Certes. So, if you use this in a portal, and if the template specifies a page or section serviced by JL-Bot, you've now got yourself an automatically updated section in the portal. JL-Bot provides links to featured content and good articles, by subject.

What is "fully automated"? When you create a portal using a creation template, and the portal works thereafter without editor intervention, the portal is fully automated. That is, the portal is supported by features that fetch new content. If you have to add new article names every so often for it to display new content, then it is only semi-automated.

Currently, the Selected article section is semi-automated, because it requires that an editor supplies the names of the various articles for which excerpts are (automatically) displayed. For examples, look at the wikisource code of Portal:Reptiles, Portal:Ancient Tamil civilization, and Portal:Reference works.

So far, 3 sections are fully automatable: the introduction section, the categories section, and the Associated Wikimedia section.

Where is all this heading?[edit]


Or some other name.

Eventually, the portal department will be a software program. And we won't have to do anything (unless we want to). Not even tell it what portals to create (unless we want to). It will just do it all (plus whatever else we want it to do). And we will of course give it good manners, and a name.

But, that is a few years off.

Until then, building portals is still (partially) up to us.    — The Transhumanist   13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #011, 10 July 2018[edit]

We now have 97 participants.

Be sure to welcome our newest members, BrantleyIzMe, Coffeeandcrumbs, and Nolan Perry, with warm regards.

Work is proceeding apace. We have 2 major thrusts right now: converting the intro sections of portals, and building the components of the one-page automated model...

Converting the intro sections

We need everybody, except those building software components, to work on converting intros. If you have AWB, definitely use that. If not, then work on them manually. Even one a day, or as often as you can muster, will help a lot. There are only about 1,000 of them left to go, so if everyone chips in, it will go pretty quickly. Remember, there are 97 of us!

The intros for most of the portals starting with A through F have already been converted to use the {{Transclude lead excerpt}} template.

The standard wikicode for the automated intro that we want to put into place looks like this:

{{Transclude lead excerpt | {{PAGENAME}} | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1}}
{{Box-footer|[[{{PAGENAME}}|Read more...]]}}

That works for most portals, but not all. For some portals it requires some tweaking, and for others, we may have to use a different or more customized approach. Remember to visually inspect each portal you work on and make sure that it works before moving on to the next one.

Be sure to skip user-maintained portals. They are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Portals#Specific_portal_maintainers.

AWB tips

I've started an AWB tips page, for those of you feeling a bit overwhelmed by that power user tool. Feel free to add to it and/or improve it.

Portal automation

We have some very talented Lua programmers, who are pushing the limits of what we can do in gathering data from Wikipedia's various namespaces and presenting it in portals. Due to their efforts, Lua is powering the selective transclusion core of our emerging automated portal design, in the form of selected article sections that rotate content, and slideshows.

To go beyond Lua's limits, to take full advantage of Mediawiki's API, we are in the midst of adding another programming language to the resources we shall be making use of: JavaScript. The ways that JavaScript can help us edit portals to boost the power of our Lua solutions, are being explored, which will likely make the two languages synergistic if not symbiotic. Research is under way on how we can use JavaScript to make some of the portal semi-automated features fully automatically self-updating, in ways that Lua cannot. Like gathering random members from a category and inserting them into a portal's templates as parameters. Once the parameters are in place, Lua does the rest.

If you would like to get involved with design efforts, or just keep up on them, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design.

When should we start building new portals?

Well, not at the present time, because building portals is quite time consuming. The good news is that we are working on a design that will be fully automated, or as close to that as we can get. And the new design is being implemented in the portal department's main portal creation template. This means, that not only will portals update themselves, their creation will be highly automated as well. That's the nature of templates. You put them in place, and they just... work.

What I'm getting at here, is that it would be better to wait to build lots of new portals until after the new design is completed. Because with it, instead of taking hours to create a new portal, it will likely take minutes.

That does not mean we should be idle in the meantime. The main reason most of us are here is because it became apparent that portals were largely unmaintained and had grown out-of-date. This had become so apparent that a proposal was made to delete all the portals and the portal namespace to boot. That makes our main objective in the short term to improve all the existing portals so that the community will want to keep them—forever.

Building lots of new portals comes later. Let's fix up the ones we have first. ;)

And on that note, I bid you adieu. Until next newsletter, see ya 'round the WikiProject.    — The Transhumanist   12:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Creation Science page edits[edit]


I noticed you reverted the Creation Science page to what it stated before I made my edits last week.

I understand that the edits were not absolutely necessary, but I thought that they clarified the stance of creation scientists. I am very familiar with the creation science movement, and as a result I'm aware that there are many believers in the Book of Genesis who believe that it can be reconciled with modern science. It is only those believers who maintain a strictly literal reading of Genesis as historical narrative who believe that it is diametrically opposed to modern theories of paleontology, astronomy, etc.

The original wording gave the impression (in my opinion) that Genesis cannot be reconciled with science and that creation scientists merely acknowledge this fact. The reality, however, is that many Old Testament scholars and believers maintain that Genesis is reconcilable with science and that it is only a literal reading (and a belief that Genesis is historical narrative) that prevents such a reconciliation.

Given the above reasoning, do you still believe that my edits were unhelpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The folks who read Genesis in the light of modern science would go under Theistic evolution, not creation science. Any theistic evolutionists who identify as creation scientists are an outlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It's all nonsense anyway. The IP needs to get a life.Charles (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
It may very well be nonsense, but that doesn't mean it should be misrepresented, nor should inaccurate information be ignored. Clearly, you cared enough to revert my edits, so accurate representation matters to you. (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Just realized I didn't address the other above concern. You are exactly correct that the view that I accommodated in my edit is the theistic evolutionist perspective. I did that very intentionally. The way the sentence is currently worded in the creation science entry is exactly how a fringe young-earth creationist would write it, with no regard for the legitimacy of any other viewpoints. My impression was that that kind of fringe representation was exactly what Wikipedia tries to avoid; thus my edits. (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, my biggest issue was with the word "acknowledge"; so I just changed that to the word "believe," and now it has the same basic point as I was trying to make with my earlier, wordier edit. (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #012, 15 July 2018[edit]

We have 97 participants.

Getting faster[edit]

Automation makes things go faster, even portal creation. One of the components Certes made was {{Transclude list item excerpt}}. I became curious about its possible applications.

So I worked out a portal design using it, the initial prototypes being Portal:Kyoto (without a "Selected pictures" section), and Portal:Dubai (with a "Selected pictures" section). Then I used Portal:Dubai as the basis for further portals of this type...

I was able to revamp Portal:Munich from start to finish in less than 22 minutes.
Portal:Dresden took about 19 minutes.
Portal:Athens took less than 17 minutes.
Did Portal:Florence in about 13 minutes.
Portal:Stockholm also in about 13.
Portal:Palermo approx. 12 minutes.


To see, and to show, what may become feasible via automation.

It now looks highly feasible that we could get portal construction time down to a few minutes, or maybe even down to a few seconds.

The singularity is just around the corner. :)


When using the {{Random slideshow}} template to display pictures, be sure to use the plural tense in the section title: "Selected pictures". That's because slideshows don't show up on many mobile devices. Instead the whole set of pictures is shown, hence the section title "Selected pictures", as it fits both situations.

In case you are curious, here is a list of the portals so far that have a slideshow:

Progress on intro conversions[edit]

The intros for most of the portals up through the letter "O" have been converted, using this wikicode:

{{Transclude lead excerpt | {{PAGENAME}} | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1}}
{{Box-footer|[[{{PAGENAME}}|Read more...]]}}

Where the pagename didn't match the article title for the subject, the title was typed in.

Most of the portals that do not contain {{/intro}} or {{{{FULLPGENAME}}/Intro}} have not yet been processed.

About a thousand portals use the method of selective transclusion for the intro section. That's about two-thirds. That means we have one-third of the way to go on the intro section conversions.

Much more to come...[edit]

So much has been happening with portals that I can't keep up with it. (That's good). Which means, more in the upcoming issue. Until then, see ya 'round the project. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Portals WikiProject update #013, 18 July 2018[edit]

I got overwhelmed IRL (in real life) during the production of issue #12. So, here is a catch-up issue, to help bring you (and me) up to speed on what is happening with portals...

By the way, we still have 97 participants. (Tell all your friends about this WikiProject, and have them join!)


One cool feature of some of the geographical portals is a panoramic picture at the top of the intro section.

Check these out:

The Portals WikiGnome squadron is busy adding panoramas to geographical portals that don't yet have one. Feel free to join in on the fun. See task details at Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#Add a panorama or skyline to a geographic portal.

Caveat: avoid super-huge pics, as they can cause portal scripts to time-out. Please try to keep picture size down below 2 megabytes. Thank you.

Auto-populated slideshows[edit]

Speaking of pictures...

We now have two slideshow templates. You may be familiar with {{Random slideshow}}, in which the editor types in (or copies/pastes) a list of pictures he or she wants it to display.

Well, now we have another template, courtesy of Evad37, which accepts one or more page names instead, and displays a random image off of the listed pages. So instead of listing dozens of files by hand, you can include a title or three to be scanned automatically. It even lets you specify particular sections.

The new slideshow template is {{Transclude files as random slideshow}}.

Here's a sample, that grabs images from a single page:

Selected motorcycle or motorcycling pictures

New Template:Box-header colour[edit]

Speaking of new templates, here's another one!

Also from Evad37, we have a new component for starting section boxes, that is color configurable, and that bypasses the need for box-header subpages altogether. It is {{Box-header colour}}.

For color support, see Web colors.

For the discussion in which this was inspired, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Tasks#Colour combinations for accessibility.

(In case you didn't notice, the slideshow box above uses this new template).

BTW, don't forget to close your box with {{Box-footer}}.

Where are we on the redesign?[edit]

The answer to this question is quite involved, and would fill this page to overflowing. Therefore, this subject, including a complete update on where we are at and where we are going with portal design, is covered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/Design.

Where are we on portal conversion?[edit]

An AWB pass to convert intros on the portals has been completed. The pass couldn't convert them all (due to various formatting configurations, etc.).

All but about 170 portals now have introductions selectively transcluded on the base page. Not counting manually maintained portals, that leaves about 70 portals that either need their intros converted, or they need an intro.

Next, we'll be converting the categories sections!

What's the plan, man?[edit]

The course of action we have been taking goes something like this, with all steps being pursued simultaeneously...

1) Design a one-page automated portal model

2) Convert existing portals to that design (except those being manually maintained)

3) Remove subpages no longer needed

4) Develop further tools to empower editors working on portals

Later, when the tools are up to the task, filling in the gaps in coverage (with new portals) will also become practical.

Are we caught up yet?[edit]

Probably not.

Who knows what our programmers and editors have dreamed up while I was writing this.

See ya again soon,    — The Transhumanist   11:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)