User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2014/January

The Draft Namespace
You commented on the proposed Draft namespace, stating you are "Strong oppose unless drafts can continue to be kept in userspace."

As it so happens, the only person who seems to oppose userspace drafts was the original proposer. I like my userspace drafts and so does everyone else. So the proposal has been changed to explicitly allow drafts in userspace.

The proposal is primarily technical-- right now we have 1500+ draft articles being stored in the Wikipedia_talk namespace. That is a technical headache because software tools will tend to expect talk content on talk pages and article on article pages. A simple example of how this is causing us trouble-- it's very difficult to search Wikipedia_talk because of all the draft articles piling up. We also hope that having a space explicitly for collaborative drafting has potential to improve new user retention.

Anyway, I just wanted to invite you to look at the proposal as it now stands, because we all shared your concerns and amended the proposal accordingly. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A proposal so half-baked that it needed to be modified within hours does not inspire confidence. 1500 articles in user space seems quite a modest number to me. I do not see why they need to be searched or that there is a problem that requires creating a new layer of complexity.--Charles (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of links for spam?
New contributor here. I added a couple of useful links to the Astrolabe page and it looks like you have an issue with them. Can you explain the problem? The links were not intended to spam, one leads to a very nice astrolabe simulator; the other to one of my websites where there are links to instructional materials and a Flash-based designer for customizing personal astrolabes for printing.

New at this so I'm still feeling my way.

Wymarc (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

--- The Wikipedia page Astrolabe has been changed on 28 November 2013 by Charlesdrakew, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrolabe for the current revision.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astrolabe&diff=next&oldid=583675803 to view this change.

Editor's summary: Reverted 1 edit by Wymarc (talk): Rv user guide and spam. (TW) --- Wikipedia is not going to link to your personal website and Wikipedia does not do user guides. See WP:External links and WP:NOTGUIDE. If you think the other link is worth having you could propose its inclusion on the article's discussion page.--Charles (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

OE
Hi,

Will you please explain this removal of my comment?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how that happened. Sorry. Probably because I am struggling with Windows 8.1 on a new computer and it is a complete pain in the arse.--Charles (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for clarification.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Arain
Thanks for your considerable assistance in keeping on top of the problems at Arain. I've now asked for pending changes to be applied temporarily but with a note that I'd prefer permanent (I do a lot of work on caste articles & just know that this issue is not going to go away). - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you available to adopt me?
Hello! I am a new editor seeking an experienced editor to adopt me here on Wikipedia via Adopt-a-user. Please let me know if you are still available to adopt me. Thank you! Writers Bond (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be pleased to help if I can. Just ask anytime.--Charles (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! Truly appreciated and thanks very much. :)  Writers Bond (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Toca Boca Article
Hi Charlesdrakew!

I was wondering if you could take a look through the Toca Boca article and let me know what could be improved or fixed. Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Games are not my area at all. It does depend heavily on in-house sources, which is alright for what the company says about itself. More independent sources would help if they can be found.--Charles (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Knesset Article
Charlesdrakew, you removed my recent edit to the Knesset page, regarding the end date for the Great Synagogue, from which the Knesset derives its name, claiming I cited no reliable source. While it is true I cited no source, the original wording cited no source either, and I did not feel it necessary. The link to the Wikipedia entry on the Great Assembly is already present, which ought to suffice. All I changed was the erroneous date 70 CE (corresponding to the destruction of Jerusalem and Herod's Temple and roughly to the founding of the Council of Jamnia) to the correct 200 BCE (corresponding to the end of the Great Synagogue). The original formulation already testifies that the Great Synagogue lasted from the end of the Biblical prophets to the time of the development of Rabbinic Judaism - about two centuries. Now, the Council of Jamnia may well be viewed as one of many starting dates for the development of Rabbinic Judaism, but the two centuries from the end of the Hebrew Prophets and the lives of Baruch and Ezra the Scribe, do not end in 70 CE. If they begin c. 440 BCE, those two centuries must end c. 240 BCE. Moreover, the Hebrew traditions of the Great Synagogue claim it ended with Simeon the Just, identified variously as Simon I (d. 270 BCE) or Simon II (d. 199 BCE).

The entry on the Great Assembly contains references to entries on the same subject from the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Jewish Virtual Library, each of which cite sources of their own.

The origin of the erroneous date of 70 CE may also derive from confusion between the Great Synagogue and the Sanhedrin, first established by the Hasmoneans and referenced repeatedly in Rabbinic texts and elsewhere (famously in the Gospels) as the highest authority of the Pharisees, which held similar functions to the Great Synagogue.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.52.183 (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not fill in the edit summary box with a reason for the change so it could have been simply vandalism. Wikipedia requires pretty much everything to be reliably sourced and not having been sourced before was an omission. If something is reliably referenced in a related article just use that reference again and everyone will be happy:)--Charles (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)