User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2013/August

Midhurst Article
I have no idea why you deleted a relevant link to very good and relevant pictures of midhurst that I added to the references section of the Midhurst entry. I put a lot of time and effort into my creative work and the link is most certainly not spam. I await your explanation and apology for this insult.
 * You are not the first to be offended by having links to their personal website removed from Wikipedia and you will not be the last.--Charles (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone with deep personal family roots in the town I wanted to contribute some images to the article. I had written a piece which included images of historic buildings in the town, which are better than the ones in the article. All very relevant. As the wiki article concerning external links says, link spamming is typically when a website is continuously linked to multiple articles. I made one link to a relevant piece. I couldn't care less about back links from wikipedia, one link from a weak article on a town with a rich history is hardly going to make or break my site, I wanted to contribute.

It's a shame but this experience just confirms the generally held belief that wikipedia is run by a small number of pseudo-academics who get their kicks acting as self-appointed gatekeepers of knowledge ... it's kinda sad for you don't you think!
 * You are very welcome to upload your photos to Wikimedia Commons so they can be used in articles but linking self-published sites is not permitted. I will post an invitation to the Teahouse where you can learn about editing if you wish.--Charles (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh and please sign your posts by clicking the pen icon above or typing four tildes(~).--Charles (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A request
Could you please help me with something? 94.168.211.221 (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That kinda depends on what that something is.--Charles (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Worth School, July 22
Hi Charles. My reason for removing from the page "Worth School" the paragraph you restored earlier today is different from the reason you suggest, and is twofold. The set of events the paragraph reports is, as a whole, not yet stable/settled, as the paragraph itself states; according to several news reports including the cited source, civil legal action between the parties reported on is on-going. It is the case, therefore, that at least some of the matters reported in the source, and then repeated in the paragraph, are disputed between the parties to this sad set of events. My own sense of the proper use of Wikipedia (which may be badly tuned on this point, perhaps) is that the appropriate neutrality of an encyclopedia article is difficult to achieve in such a situation, and the potential exists for bias to be exhibited in an unhelpful manner. In effect, this is a piece of news, suited to a news site, not a piece of Wikipedia content. Second, there is an issue of proportionality; as a component of the article section on the history of the institution it describes, the paragraph is too long. Its happening to be contemporary does not render it of greater substance than other historical material in the article which is covered in a more succinct manner. I was attempting to suggest all of this, in headline form, by describing the paragraph I removed as essentially an over-detailed news report. I hope this assists you in understanding my action. Thank you. (Lanspergius (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC))
 * I agree that per WP:Recentism the incident should not be given undue prominence. Removing it entirely however looks like whitewashing. There is no reason why it cannot be trimmed and kept to a neutral point of view from the available sources even if litigation is ongoing. That is not the same as sub judice in a criminal case.--Charles (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse Host
Yeah.. OK Sir; but it's my pleasure to assist wiki contributors with worthy. Anyways, I will try to apply again after gaining fair knowledge.

--Pancyadams (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. No need to call me sir. I am just another editor. When you have made a few hundred edits and become familiar with our systems that will be great. Meanwhile enjoy editing and contact me if you have any problems.--Charles (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you currently accepting adoptees?
Hello Charlesdrakew,

Are you currently accepting adoptees? If yes, can you adopt me?

V/R,

Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be very happy to. I do not do any kind of structured training programme but I will be happy to advise or help any way I can from several year's experience.--Charles (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * How can I make my User Page as fancy as yours? Some editors have very cool User Pages.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tachyon. Yes mine is basic compared to what some editors do. I think the best thing is to look around and when you see something you like click the "edit source" button to look at the format. You can copy/paste stuff to your page and then personalise it. Just cancel the edit on the other editor's page instead of saving when you are done there. Or there is User page design center with lots of fancy stuff. Maybe I will get round to upgrading mine one day....but probably not. You can make as many user subpages as you want for working on stuff or keeping things separate and you can link them to your userpage.--Charles (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

HighRocks Link
Hi Charles. The southernsandstoneclimbs.co.uk link I think is appropriate. We are a central point of information for the southern sandstone outcrops in the area, including High Rocks. We a conservation website, promoting the issues about the delicate sandstone and climbers who are currently allowed to climb on the rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmajayda (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory, a guide or an instruction manual. The website you added contains a lot of information but has no bibliography or editorial oversight. It may be ok as a reference for facilities and access to the rocks and restrictions on climbing but not much else. Please look for published secondary sources such as local history books and newspaper or magazine articles.--Charles (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Regents Park
Hi Charles,

I live in North London, and especially go to Regents Park practically everyday, since I was 4 years to my 29 years of age now. I know the roads like the back of my hand, and I stand around everyday and can see from 6pm - 7pm that the level of cyclists are at unprecendented levels. In addition to that, when I then drive home, I am usually slowed down by large gaggles of professional cyclists who dominate large sections of the road as they go about training. This numbers in excess of 20, but sometimes goes to 50 on most days at certain parts of the evening.

I don't think there's any way of you verfiying that unless you either visit that area for yourself, or ask a Regents Park/ London Zoo employee/ contributer on this site for further information if that is their experience too.

Please re-instate that section if agreed, as I beieve it is valid and does not require a reference.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellothere84 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Hellothere. The thing is that everything on Wikipedia needs a published source. However accurate your observations may be they are original research and will not be included.--Charles (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The Mayor of Casterbridge
Hello Charles, Thank you for your recent contributions to The Mayor of Casterbridge article. The contributions by User: Santamoly are clearly against Wikipedia policy and they have even attempted to comment on my User page (not Talk page!). With unfortunate timing, I'm off on holiday for a week, so will be unable to check any developments - although I have asked a administrator to look at developments. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Charles, you appear to be unaware that the WP:Burden policy recommends that an editor "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it"


 * Further to the above If you've asked for feedback from an admin, I'll be restoring the edits in question so facilitate the discussion. Try to remain civil and avoid bad language such as "passive aggressive crap".  Please don't delete any comments you don't like since the comments help third parties to the discussion.  If something in the article offends your sensibilities, comment on the Talk Page rather than reverting without comment. I'm willing to work with your concerns, but you need to be more specific and less aggressive. Santamoly (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Charles, I'm halfway out of the door for my vacation, but I wanted to express my support for your latest action on Santamoly. This "editor" seems to mix-up who has said what, making comments on User pages then appears to be helpful whilst ignoring his own rude comments and inability to conform to Wikipedia standards on sources/references. Anyway, I have to go, but will check-in when I return in a weeks time. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Charles, your "last warning" is clearly in violation of long-standing Wikipedia principles. It's possible that you're a newcomer to Wikipedia and you're unaware of how WP operates.  Nevertheless, I can see that you're upset about something, but I have to advise you that unsubstantiated feelings are not sufficient basis for starting an edit-war. None of your feelings on this topic are sufficient to justify the bad language you have used. Please get back to the task at hand which for you, is stating what it is that concerns you about this particular content.  I'm hoping that you can start to participate in some kind of useful discussion without getting sidetracked by your emotions. Santamoly (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Charlesdrakew. Just to let you know, in light of the most recent reversion by Santamoly, I've just filed a report against them at the edit warring noticeboard. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In view of all the other tendentious nonsense I was going to make an ANI report but we will see what happens.--Charles (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Balcombe
Hey, how about going over to Balcombe and taking some pictures. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is quite a distance from where I live and I am very busy at present so that is unlikely. Wouldn't mind sharing a police cell with Caroline Lucas though.--Charles (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - FAC
Hello Charlsedrakew,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)