User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2013/July

Men's Rights Movement
As mentioned IN THE EDIT SUMMARY: wp:cite "such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." I'm being threatened with 1RR so I cannot undo your edit. --TheTruthiness (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What a pity. If it is cited in the article it does not also need to be cited in the lead section. You are merely being tendentious.--Charles (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy disagrees with you- policy I did not write. If you don't agree with that policy, I suggest you bring it up on its talk page instead of arguing with editors who follow it. It's not "tendentious" to want a claim that a group hates 53% of the population to be cited. If I were tendentious I would've removed it completely, yet still have been well within my rights to do so. It's tendentious to want a defamatory claim stated in the lead and protest the simple citation of a reliable sources cited there. --TheTruthiness (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So go and bore people on the article talk page if you don't like it.--Charles (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to keep reverting information that is true and sourced, I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngieWattsFan (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You will have to wait until your block expires:(--Charles (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Quid pro quo. Onward and upward. Per ardua ad astra.--Charles (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Tannenberg
Hello, you messaged me after i edited the Battle of Tannenberg. Let me explain, earlier the casualties on russian side were listed as 160,000, now, they are listed as 90,000. Though many websites disagree on the numbers, most say that the russians lost over 100,000 men. Also, the section called "The main battle (26 August to 30 August)" still says that the russians lost 160,000 men with 92,000 men captured and 78,000 killed or wounded. As i couldn't confirm the source "Tannenberg 1914" by John Sweetman, i thought that the new numbers were incorrect. Perhaps the article could be edited further so there won't be any contradictions and give misleading information. Or perhaps i was wrong and the new numbers are correct. ChrisMKL (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted because you replaced referenced figures with non-referenced figures without any explanation and without being logged in. A discussion about reliability of sources on the article talk page may be the best way forward.--Charles (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, i see. I won't edit the new numbers then. What about 160,000 referenced in the main article? ChrisMKL (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is reliably sourced in the main article that is fair enough. Just fill in the box above the save button to explain to other editors why you are doing it. We get misinformation added by trolls on a daily basis and I am looking at differences between versions rather than reading the whole article. With thousands of pages watched that would just take too long so we work on the basis of WP:BRD. Happy editing.--Charles (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada
Thank you Charles for inviting me to Teahouse, which was a while back. I have noticed that you have a special interest in England and I think that presentations on the monarchy will interest you. There are statements in Wikipedia that seem to poorly represent the monarchy in Canada. References to Canada's Royal family and the Monarchy of Canada for instance. I'm sure you understand enough on the subject so as not to need a more detailed report to understand that monarchy here can be covered better than it is. Please let me know if you are willing to help improve the coverage. I feel that consideration from England wil be quite helpful, because local propaganda elsewhere might be harder to contend with. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, RCNesland (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Regina. Saskatchewan, Canada. RCNesland (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take a look but I am not that interested in monarchy. Yes the Queen has done a good job over a lifetime of service but I get tired of the constant fawning over a family who just happened by historical accident to end up as hereditary heads of state. Even worse is the whole pyramid of hangers-on who come with royalty.--Charles (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

transport articles
I must ask why do you feel the need to constantly remove valuable information from various transport articles? You've ruined a number of them! The information on some has been there from the very start and you've just decided to remove it all, it's very unfair on those editors who've spent many hours getting them up to a decent standard then you wipe out their good edits, It's beyond a joke now. Fatty2k10 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read what Wikipedia is not, specifically that it is not a directory. You might also benefit from reading WP:PRIMARY as Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of information copied wholesale from primary sources. Wikipedia articles are supposed to give an overview of a subject using material mainly from reliable secondary sources and without going into excessive detail which can be found in the reference sources. I hope this answers your concerns.--Charles (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI
FYI: 70.235.86.12 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

St Aubyns School Rottingdean
Hi Charles, thank you for being prepared to give so much of your time up for nothing, I am quite new to Wikipedia, so not particularly skilful with regard to updating pages correctly. I would welcome a constructive dialogue with you about how to accurately reflect what has happened at St Aubyns, which as you will suspect as a local person is at best incredibly poor behaviour by Cothill Educational Trust, and at worst nothing short of scandalous.

However I have steadfastly avoided such words in my edits as I have tried to stick to facts, and I am frustrated by the fact that so much of what I know to be true is not easily proved. Any help you can give me with making my edits stick would be hugely appreciated! I am prepared to meet with you, lest you think I am merely an ignorant idiot with an emotive, non-factual axe to grind. I wish merely that a fitting and accurate memorial to the school exists, to serve both as a tribute and a warning but as an educational professional I am also keen that the truth is told. I don't have the skills but I suspect that you have, hence my offer to share as much data as necessary with you.

When I read things like 'valiant efforts by Cothill' however, it makes me very angry indeed!

Thanks - Andrew Jeffrey (my real name and I am happy to share address and phone with you as well if necessary in order to help prove the veracity of my words). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NobbyRiker (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew. Thank you for contacting me about this. I do not need to know your contact details as your personal knowledge is not relevant to Wikipedia. No offence intended. It is just that facts included in articles need to be referenced from reliable published sources. Verifiability is rated very highly, even above accuracy in some instances because we reflect what sources say rather than making editorial judgements. If there are newspaper or television reports about the events you describe then they can be used. Otherwise, however important it is to the people involved it is not able to be included. There is also the question of notability of the subject (the school) for inclusion in the first instance. As a worldwide English encyclopaedia we do not try to cover everything. Primary and middle schools in the state sector just do not get articles unless there is something exceptionally interesting about them. There are quite a lot of prep schools currently included, often because of the buildings they use, but there is always the prospect that some of them will get deleted in time.


 * Even if not much can be done in this case I encourage you to get involved in editing other articles. It is a rewarding hobby I find, and as an education professional you will have valuable skills. You might start by writing an article on the footballer you added to the school's alumni. Consensus is that only people with their own page are included in such lists to avoid them becoming too long. Again there will be standards on who is notable for an article which is worth checking first to avoid disappointment.--Charles (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful, sensible and measured response. My point about veracity was simply to show you that I was sincere and not a troll. You make an interesting point about verifiability being in some cases more 'weightier' than truth. At an academic level I accept this is probably justifiable, but in this instance I am concerned that downright lies are also avoided (such as the repeated amendments by someone at CET to erase their actions from history, which as you can imagine has infuriated very many people in Rottingdean). I am pleased to see that Conn has made a rather better job than me at citing appropriate references - I hope his version will be able to stand on that basis.

As to editing, my job takes me all over the world and I would hate to commit to this if it involved a minimum number of hours, since I would rather not do it than do it badly, but if it does not then yes, in principle, I would be very interested in helping out. Perhaps we can meet at some point? I am based in Saltdean. What training would be involved? Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by NobbyRiker (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors do as much or as little as they wish. Anything from fixing typos and improving grammar to researching and writing whole new articles. There are training programmes available and the Teahouse is a great place to get advice. I just taught myself to edit using the help pages. There was a meeting of editors in Brighton recently which I was unable to attend and I expect there will be others at some point.

That sounds like something that I could help with, even if only in a limited capacity. I will check out the teahouse as you suggest. Thanks.

IRC office hours for wiki-mentors and Snuggle users
Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in on '''Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC'''. See the agenda for more info. -- EpochFail (talk &bull; work), Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No can do. I will be out and about at that time.--Charles (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Adoption
Hello Charlesdrakew! I'm Mach, i've read your profile on the Adopt-a-user's Adoptee's area and i'm wondering if you can provide me mentorship? --MachKushayt c 01:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I will be pleased to help in any way I can. You seem to be doing well already looking at what you have created.--Charles (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! when will we start my training program? --MachKushayt c 14:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't do a formal programme but will be happy to answer any queries you have.--Charles (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay then! i'll ask you when i have a question. --MachKushayt c 11:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good faith reversion
I thank you for your good faith reversion and I am interested in whether this was policy, or may I suggest more of an extrapolation of policy (such as extreme brevity). I have an interest in stating where the legacy is in the lead, purely as England has so many gardens, a given visitor to the country is potentially interested to visit or learn about gardens in a certain county, or national park. If I could point you towards the Soilscape website you'd see how interestingly diverse our soils are for a medium sized European country. I have no doubt that if it were South Africa or France, for instance then a state, or département would be given. This is of course a minor point, but the article is brief beyond the realms of what most good article reviews require. Indeed a more polite and constructive edit, in my norm of doing things, so as to befriend people, would I believe to have "sectionalised" the rest of the article. And where necessary summarise it as the non-starting paragraphs are too much of an itemised life narrative and should normally be ordered by period.- Adam37   Talk  17:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I was looking at the diff rather than the whole article and assumed I was reading just the lead section when that is in fact the whole article. Yes it does need a lot of work and I am too busy to tackle it. I will revert the change.--Charles (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)