User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2011/March

David van Edwards
I'm not sure why you removed Van Edwards from the Norwich article/contemporary names list. Although not a lutenist myself, a little investigation reveals that he is indeed a leading luthier or maker of these instruments. Van Edwards has his own website, but no attempt has been made to reference this in the article; which suggests to me that this is not a crude commercial "puff". I would also say that on the strength of the available information on this individual, he is as worthy of inclusion as many of the other names in that list.

I would welcome your comments.

Roaringboy 07:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaringboy (talk • contribs)
 * As I made clear in my edit summary van Edwards is a red link which means he does not have his own Wikipedia article. This is the criterion used to allow inclusion in lists. Articles should mainly be written in prose anyway rather than being collections of lists. No doubt he is a very good bowmaker but are we going to list all the skilled artisans who have worked in Norwich during its long history? I think not. If we did want a reference for him it would need to be a reliable third party source, not his own commercial site. If you write an article about Edwards and it passes notability then you will be able to include him.--Charles (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re English Heritage revert
Hi there. With regard to this silly little edit war over soapboxing in English Heritage, I've attempted to discuss the issue with the editor rationally at Talk:English Heritage (that's a mouthful!) and seem to be hitting a bit of a brick wall. The unsourced edit is still up, and I have no real interest in getting into a revert war with him. If you're interested, your thoughts on the talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember this being agressively pushed a few months ago, probably by the same person. You have given a very good explanation on the article talk page but I don't think rational discussion will make much difference here.--Charles (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cofton Hackett
Hi Charles

Just seen your message after I reposted the link to The Village magazine on the page for Cofton Hackett. Sorry about that.

Still, I can see no reason why it should not be there as the magazine is an integral part of the community in Cofton and the other villages to the east of Bromsgrove.

If you care to follow the link, you'll see this.

All the best

Richard Editor, The Village 80.229.229.100 (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:External links.--Charles (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrija Artukovic
Hi. Don't know why you rv my edit as "unsourced". The source (The Extradition of Nazi Criminals: Ryan, Artukovic, and Demjanjuk, by Henry Friedlander and Earlean M. McCarrick ) was clearly referenced. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles
Rather than just revert, I thought I'd better check first why you thought "an" was more appropriate before "VRS" than "a". Surely the form of the article is determined by the spoken form of the noun or initials that follow? Opbeith (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for consulting. I do not know if you are a native English speaker, but we normally avoid using the glottal stop which is necessary to say "a VRS" and use "an" instead. Keep up the good work.--Charles (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Charles - where does the glottal stop come from? There's none involved in "a VRS" - there's a consonant following a vowel. Opbeith (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are quite right and I am a fool, or mildly dyslexic perhaps. I have been reading VRS as RVS all the time. Perhaps I am more familiar with that combination of letters. Apologies for the inconvenience and I will go and correct it now.--Charles (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, mild dyslexia will probably end up as the cause of Armageddon but I don't think this was on the scale even of some of my own catastrophes - A Fellow-Sufferer Opbeith (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bangladesh Awami League
Dear Charles, You deleted my additions to the "Bangladesh Awami League" page with a note "a blog is not a reliable source".

However, please note, my edits were: 1. Changing the header of the section from "Election 2008" to "2008-2011" to reflect I was going to update the last entry (which has not been updated since the elction results, which was in December 2008) 2. Added the names of key female Ministers, and key Ministers who were sons of members of her father's cabinet. Links from all of those were to the Ministers Wikipedia pages, if they had one. A google search will also confirm that these are the ministers. 3. The last para was a summary of political incidents 2009-2011, and although the reference was indeed a blog as you point out, the blog was actually reprinting the results of a citizen survey taken by Nielsen and commissioned by Daily Star, the country's leading newspaper.

I would request you to revert back the paragraph with the Ministers names, as those are corroborated by Wiki pages. If you don't feel the blog link is acceptable, please put this link to the Nielsen survey on Daily Star's own page

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=168909

thanks

Shilpakala (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)shilpakala
 * When I see a blog being used as a reference source I shoot on sight. If you think its use is justified put it back, but keep in mind that the link will probably not stay the same for long (link rot). Using a newspaper article is more likely to last and will probably not be reverted by reviewers like me. Happy editing.--Charles (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Charles, I'll revise the edit so as to use the newspaper link instead. --Shilpa —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC).

No, Charles, you "shoot on sight" because you don't understand the nature of Wikipedia. Your personal choice doesn't come into it - leave valid information as it is in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.148.45 (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, anonymous IP, it is you who does not understand the nature of Wikipedia. All content must not only be factual but also VERIFIABLE using reliable sources. Uncited or incorrectly cited material may be removed by any editor at any time. Please sign your posts by clicking the button in the edit bar and please stop scibbling all over my talk page.--Charles (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

External links misunderstanding
Charles, I just wanted to clarify something because you have deleted an external link several times that appears to be perfectly ok. The rules/guidelines for external links is WP:EL. WP:NOT applies to Wikipedia content, not to external links. So for example, an external link that links to a directory is perfectly ok providing it satisfies WP:EL. It does not fall foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY because the directory is not in Wikipedia. Hope that helps. pgr94 (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC) PS we can of course take this to the help desk if you want other opinions on the matter. pgr94 (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which link?--Charles (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Xplled
Thanks for commenting at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, you may wish to sign your post and undo the very minor change you probably inadvertently made to Yopienso's post. As you say, there are a few instances of "faith schools" in the UK promoting creationism, they occasionally get into the news. By the way, the National Curriculum doesn't apply in education in Scotland, but the science education requirements are similar. . . dave souza, talk 20:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup Dave. I am not usually so careless.--Charles (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, everyone including me, bodges things on occasion. Your input is very much appreciated, dave souza, talk 23:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)