User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2018/May

Please clarify
Hi Charlesdrakew, we can discuss on the article's talkpage the article edits of mine that you summarily reverted in this edit, but I would like to ask you here to clarify what you meant by the following remark in your edit summary: "Given your history you had probably better stay away from this article." -- DeFacto (talk). 16:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You know damn well what I mean. I was somewhat surprised to see you block lifted given the magnitude of your past misbehaviour. If you are going to bring your obsessive hatred of metrication here again I will haul your sorry arse straight back to ANI to get you banned again.Charles (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, it confirms to me exactly what I suspected. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sydney Bus Lists
These three pages Local bus routes in northern_Sydney, Local bus routes in Western_Sydney and Local bus routes in south-eastern_Sydney were originally one big list of all routes which I suspect would not have passed your Travel Guide test. That data has long gone and since split into three pages which virtually contain no bus route information hence they are now misnamed. And the content mainly relates to operator information which can already be found in the operator pages such as Transdev NSW and others so basically all duplicated information. Hence I think these pages are useless and should be deleted. If you think they should we deleted I dont mind if you start the deletion process. Other pages which are suspect are Suburban bus routes in Sydney and Rapid bus routes in Sydney which are both based on a four year old plan but little if anything of this has been implemented but the person creating these pages believes it must have all happened as there has never been any withdrawal of the plan.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution Climate Weather Box
Dear Wikipedian,

Given the lack of consensus on the inclusion of a weather box for the Selsey article talk page, I have requested a dispute resolution.

Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Best Regards Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A WP:Request for comment would have sufficed at this stage. There is a discussion going on rather than a dispute.Charles (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In many ways that is a fair enough comment and I would have held off but for silence on the talk page and for my workload senarios over the next couple of weeks. Will consider that in future.  I will take on board your comments.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Secular Morality
Hi Charles, I am curious why you reverted my edit to Secular Humanism. The referenced text is Psalm 14 which is part of the Old Testament i.e. the Hebrew Bible. This dates back to at least 3,000 years ago. Why do you think calling it the Christian Bible is more accurate. The NT does not include the Psalms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herodotus72 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Stagecoach Gold
I don't know what your problem is with the Stagecoach Gold article, but there is no reason for you to be removing referenced and sourced content that is still valid. Timetables from Stagecoach's website are valid references and are suitable to backup the data that is in the table. I understand your concern with self-published sources however Wikipedia does allow them as mentioned in Identifying and using self-published works and the owner of the source used in the Stagecoach Gold article is an employee at Stagecoach in Oxfordshire. Sites like the Oxford & Chilterns Bus Page are very useful as it often mentions things that Stagecoach will only keep on their website for a short period of time, therefore making it impossible to find official sources for certain things.

As the content on the article is referenced, I will be reverting your edits. If you decide to remove the content again, I will report you for vandalism as there is no reason for you to be removing the content. Instead of removing content, why don't you actually contribute and help as you obviously don't know how much time and effort it takes to generate content for articles. —Commyguy (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of your sources are self-published fan sites, not allowed, and the rest is original research compiled from the bus company's own websites, also not allowed. This is an encyclopedia not a bus guide. You can compile that sort of stuff at Wikia, where there are such articles already, at Wikia. And you can report me as much as you like.Charles (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand the issue with self-published fan sites as the reliability of the information is arguable. The problem is that quite often, the original source gets deleted if the information is no longer relevant to passengers.


 * With regards to your original research comment, I'm not entirely sure you understand what original (primary) research means. The timetables are published sources by the bus company, and not data that I have created myself. Original research would be me going out and writing down times that buses go past, this is then my own research which is not a published or verified source as stated in original research. I quote from the original research policy "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." A timetable is reliable, published by the bus operator and related to the article, therefore I cannot see any issue with using a timetable as a suitable and reliable reference. Furthermore, there are plenty of other articles that use timetables to support information, including but not limited to, Metropolitan line, Edinburgh Trams and Great Western Railway. —Commyguy (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)