User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2015/April

Royal Marines
Military articles are allowed to have the flag in the infobox. Flags are allowed when they represent the nation. Read MOS:ICON. Here is a list of military article with flags in the infobox. - GoldenBoy25 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Royal Thai Marine Corps
 * United States Marine Corps
 * Republic of Korea Marine Corps
 * Spanish Navy Marines
 * Mexican Navy
 * Russian Navy
 * French Navy
 * Portuguese Navy
 * Italian Navy
 * Argentine Marines
 * Republic of China Navy


 * Strange. I thought I had replied to this bit of nonsense days ago. There is nothing in MOS:ICON to support your claim. Quite the reverse. It specifically says flag icons should only be used in infoboxes if they add information that is not already in the text. There are no special rules for military related pages. The misuse of icons in other articles is no excuse for doing more of it.Charles (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Gallipoli
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallipoli_Campaign&oldid=prev&diff=648912759 - with this revert, you made the comment: "Image size should not be specified." Really? Why? Is there a wiki-rule on that you can quote? Actually, don't bother... the image needs to be resized. Obviously you're new here, and didn't realize that when you make an edit, even a revert, you are responsible for ensuring that the article has been improved, and more importantly, not made worse. When you make blind reverts, like you did here, because you're in such a rush to show your wiki-superiority, you end up making mistakes - mistakes that others have to both fix (again) and explain to you. I'm going to revert it back. If you get the revert itch again, look at the before and after effects of the edit, and stop wasting people's time. - the WOLF  child  09:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First I am not new here as I have been editing for 8 years. Size setting of images was depracated years ago. Have to go now will look up policy later. Probably in WP:Image use policy.Charles (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's correct - the policy is WP:IMGSIZE. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's besides the point. The image needs to be slightly upsized. Just look, instead of blindly reverting.- the WOLF  child  09:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Links to Nottingham 21
Hi Charles, For some reason you keep deleting the links that I have added to two or three of your pages recently. These links give your visitors an excellent view in pictures of the places concerned. E.G. Nottingham Railway Station. Many of my pages have over 100 pictures of the places. I am NOT a commercial enterprise, my site is just a hobby and in 2011 it won a Nottinghamshire Stars Award from Nottinghamshire Tourism. There have been links to my pages from your site for nine years now, so I don't understand why you keep deleting these recent ones. They are VERY appropriate and as they say, "A Picture Speaks a Thousand Words" Please explain why you are deleting my links. Regards, Ray Teece Please respond to: mailto nottingham21@btinternet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.115.123 (talk • contribs)
 * Explained relevant WP:ELNO bits on talk. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ian.Charles (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Brighton
Dear Charles,

Thank you for letting me know that what I did was against guidelines. It cannot escape my notice, however, that - having read the entire Wikipedia article on Brighton - many other private businesses, firms, and individuals are mentioned without much reason other than their local fame and/or popularity, of which Banfields' has much. Hence I hope you will approve that once I have created a page for M.L.Banfield and Sons', I shall re-edit the section (albeit more discretely) including a link to the newly created page.

Kind regards and thanks again,

Joe JoeBanfield (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you believe other firms are given undue coverage feel free to prune them. Before starting a page for Banfields I advise reading our guidelines on business notability. This may avoid wasting you time. Wikipedia has quite stringent limits on what is considered notable for inclusion. Assuming you are involved with the business you will also need to read about conflict of interest. There are however plenty of helpful things to be done on Wikipedia and I encourage you to get involved.Charles (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Adoption
I would be happy to adopt you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobadooba (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's nice.Charles (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Woking Railway Station
I don't understand why I have been accused of being disruptive as the information which I added to Woking station was totally valid and relevant. Railway56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railway56 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to write a railway travel guide go and do it somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.Charles (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)