User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2013/January

Thanks

Hi, Thank you for your invitation to Wiki. I am new in wiki but active. If any mistakes from my side, please correct me. I am creating and editing articles in wiki. ThanksMydreamsparrow (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Those are some great photos on your userpage.--Charles (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Serial comma

Hey, Charles. You recently reverted the addition of a comma after de Vere Cole in the list of Piltdown hoax suspects ("suspects have included Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Arthur Keith, Martin Hinton, Horace de Vere Cole and Arthur Conan Doyle"), on the grounds that no comma is needed before "and". That is actually an over-simplification. The serial comma is in fact optional, and some guides recommend its systematic use. In this instance, I personally would favour its use as avoiding the potential ambiguity that de Vere Cole and Conan Doyle acted together, but I haven't reverted you for such a small thing. This is just so you know. Your friendly neighbourhood grammar nazi, Awien (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI links

Hello. I hope you don't mind that I corrected your links to this from the users' Talk pages. I know that we do not usually change others' Talk page comments and I apologize for the breach of etiquette but it had picked up a default version of the link and needed changing to specify the user. I hope this has helped more than it has annoyed, but please feel free to revert me as you wish. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

ermm oops and the link on the SPI page, into which a spare "User: " had crept. I corrected that too, but am now stopping before it starts to look like I am following you around, hiding in the bushes outside your house, etc! :) DBaK (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No apology needed. Thank you for sorting out my amateur efforts. SPI is not an area I usually venture into.--Charles (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. This is all very new to me and I would rather not be involved at all. Sadly, I have now added another name to the SPI. There may be, and I hope there is, an innocent explanation, but I do think it needs looking at by someone who knows this stuff. Thanks for the greetings - you have a good one too. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! I knew this guy had been around more than a month or three.--Charles (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

<Paxman voice>Yessss</Paxman voice> ... thanks; I must say that I don't feel that good about it; I'd much rather I was wrong. But yes, it certainly now sounds rather clearer, and I can't really see why one would do that - seems perhaps a bit unsporting, or something. But mine is not to judge. Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What staggers me is the rudeness towards all those lovely people in the US who started this project and provide the majority of funding for it. Edit warring to change the style of English at Train station is just beyond the pale in my opinion.--Charles (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

May Odin keep you and your family out of prostitution as he steals Thor's chariot and pretends to be a Greek saint several months after Jesus of Nazareth's more probable birthday! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I like it! Ho ho ho and a Merry Christmas to you.--Charles (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wedensambo reverts

Is there actually a point to doing this? Railway station is a redirect to train station and policy is not to 'fix' links to redirects. Prodego ^talk 20:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

All the Japanese articles are in US English so changing them was against WP:ENGVAR and/or WP:RETAIN. Plus I do not think a blocked user should profit by a fait acompli. I will leave the rest for now in case you can show this action is incorrect.--Charles (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there should probably be some discussion about it before reverting (perhaps on ANI) due to the large number of edits that would have to be made for what are mostly cosmetic purposes. Prodego ^talk 20:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to centralize such a discussion where it would get attention from all interested parties. There is the question of the alleged sockpuppet profiting from what they did, of the consensus or lack thereof for the changes, about the charging ahead with them (at high speed) while discussion was ongoing. Policy is important but so presumably is avoiding the rewarding of abuse. The three alleged sockpuppets made many, many edits across several rail areas so, while the interest of the UK rail people is good, somewhere that ties it all together, and/or makes sure it gets the necessary attention - and vigilance against more of this from further socks - would be even better. DBaK (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A happy new year to you all.--Charles (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and the same to you. DBaK (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You can keep an eye out for additional socks here. Prodego ^talk 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's well worth knowing about. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Crouch,Swale will be getting the new IP adrress every week or so from his internet provider if you want to know. By the way, I have definitely nothing to do with both Crouch,Swale and England Transport at all just in case any one of you wants to try to say otherwise! I have already been falsely accused of being a sock puppet of Crouch,swale. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 18:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)