User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2018/March

Can you please do not revert my edit

Hi Charles, i noticed that you reverted all my edits and you said my my source isn't reliable. I am a Singaporean and LandTransportGuru is very reliable and who are you to say that the source isn't reliable?? All the info provided are reliable and can you not revrt it again and mind your own business. Glendonldy (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) What an interesting edit. Can I respectfully suggest that, instead of this approach, you could try good manners first? Flies, vinegar, honey ... does any of this ring a bell? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Self published websites such as LandTransportGuru are not accepted as reliable by Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC) I am stating facts in Woodlands South MRT station. Mind your own business.

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Review of editing of stations in NSW

According to your information, you said the information was not reliable and no reference. According to your base knowledge, please wisely use the tripview apps to check the platform services. This will not be mention twice, thanks. You are not enough knowledge about Sydney metro. Sorry Last to mention:'Wikipedia does not use ampersands.' Thanks for your idea, please make sure you edit all the ampersands in the wikipedia. It will be a great job if you did all or just specific article.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Train Controller Brian Lee (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC) 

Don't tell me what to do.Charles (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Do it what you can. What i did on Granville Station is only adding the platform services, i am not reliable to changing the notes and information about the pdf. Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Train Controller Brian Lee (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Category

Regarding [1], see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 2 and User talk:DVdm#Mass removal. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit to First Crusade

I once again removed what appears to be a sly advertisement for Rubenstein's book. It isn't by any means the most recent work...It's an excuse to name drop him. There's been work out of Dartmouth on the topic that was at least scholastic in nature. Jay's isn't. That's all.

1 You had not explained why you removed it.

2 It has been replaced again by another editor.

Go to the article talkpage to discuss removing it, to see if you can get a consensus for doing so.Charles (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)