User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2010/August

Battle of Mercredesburne

Charles I have given the Battle of Mercredesburne page a bit of TLC, it is not great but I think that we can remove the 'disputed' banner as long as Seafordrulez is OK about it. Regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think stating the year of the battle as fact in the lede is unverifiable. Around that date or according to legend would be safer qualifications. Otherwise it looks fine and I have no objection to de-tagging it.--Charles (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Recycling bin

Please explain why you removed the recycling bin image that was added to Recycling bin. I didn't quite understand your edit summary.SwisterTwister (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

I had never seen that page, let alone edited it. I did remove such an image from somewhere in the new forest, Cadnam as I remember, because it did not seem to be an improvement.--Charles (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

re 173.34.202.59 editing at Mian

Though you might like to know 173.34.202.59 has been editing there again. Just FYI. --220.101 (talk) ^Contribs 22:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Earth

Hello... FYI, I've undone your edit to Earth as it appears you inadvertently rolled the article back to a out-of-date version from almost two months ago. Could you please identify what the problem edit from the IP was, so that we can fix it without the rollback? Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was checking other edits by a vandal and found an edit which had been followed and embedded by reversion of following vandalism. Too late at night, too tired, internet being very slow, I failed to look at the dates.--Charles (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tolson Museum

Thanks for this Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Arain

Thank you, Charles, and I applaud you for the efforts you make. Unfortunately there are those who seem to be hell bent on repeatedly distorting the true origins of the Bhutto clan, something that has irritated many of those who are actually cognizant of the facts. Gill Jat (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something the sources indicate Bhutto is a Rajput tribe. We've had a consistent stream of reverts by IPs adding Arain. I assume you made a good faith edit. The next step on this ongoing slow edit war is semi protection unless things change in the next while. Just to let you know the state of affairs.(olive (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC))

I am no expert on this. I only got into looking after the Arain page by accident, and it is an uphill struggle. From what I have found online the term Arain is as much about occupation as about ethnicity and it seems that some Rajput clans migrated and settled to become Arain, so both POVs may be valid. We now have a couple of good quality refs that the Bhuttos were originally Rajputs which will make things easier when they are incorparated as inline refs.

York

3rd party link added. I trust the trigger happy undos will cease and WP AGF will be adhered to?! 95.149.233.129 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If you add quality references rather than spam posing as a reference, whoever you are.--Charles (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus is needed, Charles can count me in. Very spammy in my opinion. almost-instinct 11:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I for one cannot see any spam. It is a well known umbrella group for all the schools and the citation link is a 3rd party radio report. I don't have any issue with it staying in - it satisfies WP requirements. Tomtolkien (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep up Tomtolkien. We are discussing the original addition, not third party but the organisation's own homepage. The stuff you have deleted from your own talk page makes me wonder if you have a conflict of interest here.--Charles (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with this page. It has a third party citation. There seems to be more consensus for than against. What is your issue Charles - please elaborate in detail with evidence. 88.110.140.179 (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources must be reliable. AGF is not an excuse to do whatever you want. It's hard to assume anything when you insist in edit warring. It's your responsibility to bring this to the talk page - contested changes should be discussed, we're not going to discuss it for you. Rehevkor ✉ 00:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Rehevkor - It appears to be you that is edit warring. As far as I can see there are four people in favour of keeping this article and two (IP suggests one, probably you) who insists on reverting without seeking consensus or providing detailed explanation. Perhaps you should abide by WP protocol and stop hiding behind sock puppet profiles and WP jargon. If you don't agree with the page, AGF and start a discussion, gain consensus and let a rational decision become apparent based on consensus. Otherwise you run the risk of appearing to have some vested interest against the other party. BTW the correct place for this discussion is the York talk page - I have moved the discussion there (from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charlesdrakew) for the benefit of all. 95.149.233.129 (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting that an IP with less than ten edits knows so much about wiki protocol. My nostrils are detecting some odour of fish.--Charles (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Working on the assumption that the various reverting IPs and User:Tomtolkien are one and the same I have reported this to the 3RR Noticeboard almost-instinct 10:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted on York once, I suppose that can count as edit warring - but ho hum, but otherwise attempted to engage in discussion, but instead I, and everyone else, has been met with bad faith, edit warring and even vandalism accusations. The idea that these "four people" are entirely unrelated is laughable at best. Rehevkor ✉ 11:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Where have you engaged in discussion? Please link. I can only see evidence of one or two editor reverting pages with no discussion. There are an awful lot of allegations coming from you, but only rebuttals in return and offers to discuss and find consensus. The userpages and history demonstrate that it is in fact you who simply reverts and runs, and then puts out considerable smoke when challenged to engage in discussion or provide evidence. Tomtolkien (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC) That's an unfair, untrue and false allegation which you cannot provide evidence to back up. Remove the allegation, or I will remove it for you. I have also raised your matter with 3RR. It's a shame you refuse to respect WP protocol and result to name calling and lies. More maturity required on your part methinks! It's also interesting that you refuse to engage in the debate, and result to unpleasant tactics instead - this demonstrates that you do not have any evidence or argument with regard to consensus. Tomtolkien (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please. We have encouraged you to discuss this with us, it's up to you to tell us why you want to change anything, so we can reach a consensus. Instead of this edit warring, accusations of bad faith, things like "refuse to respect WP protocol" (pfft), accusations of vandalism, "unpleasant tactics". How is any of this discussing content of articles? Please show me where you have attempted to discuss content at Talk:York. I am beginning to suspect you have no intention to play ball here, and everyone is getting tired of this minor issue being blown out. Rehevkor ✉ 11:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"We have encouraged you to discuss this with us". No you have not. I have repeatedly asked you to discuss. You have failed on every level to discuss. Instead you have reverted with no discussion, reasons, references, or attempt to reach consensus. Tomtolkien (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have. Multiple times. You have to initiate this discussion, we will not do it for you. You have to justify it's inclusion in the article. You have not done so. Will you do so? Yes or no. Rehevkor ✉ 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Er no you haven't. I've asked you multiple times, and you've refused. I'm not asking you to do anything for me - I'm not needy like some people! BTW - if you checked the group's user page this is support. Once again to you I say: I have repeatedly asked you to discuss. You have failed on every level to discuss. Instead you have reverted with no discussion, reasons, references, or attempt to reach consensus. Therefore, if you are interested in carrying on with this discussion, instead of simply being boorishly repetitive, please contribute to WP in terms of discussion, and consensus - and stop being unpleasant to boot! Tomtolkien (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No then. You are not addressing the valid reasons the content was removed. It is your responsibility to do so. Good luck. Rehevkor ✉ 14:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -- œ^™ 04:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Chichester Cathedral

Glad you're happy! I think I'll do it elsewhere as well, but maybe not tonight. It's nearly 12.30 in the land of Oz. I love Chichester Cathedral, actually. I have always found people there very friendly. Amandajm (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Liquor issue

Thank you for informing me about how you are careful as to maintain a "neutral point of view" in wikipedia.I respect that sentiment and I believe any encyclopedia should be guided by this principle. However, on the issue of liquor prohibition in Mizoram, if we have to go by this fair standard you and i cherish,the earlier post just neatly undermined the veracity of the situation on the ground. It was strongly laced with negativities against not only the church and the government establishment, but also against the early Christian Missionaries, who actually did not outlaw the intoxicant in the first place, and citing one ex-politician as if the composer is of one mind with him. The post did not reflect why it was necessary to put the prohibition in place nor did it give a comment on the sentiment of the people of the state concerning this issue; it kept on going a single path of accusation against those that the writer thinks are responsible. I hope the partial treatment of the issue may be corrected--or allowed to be corrected-- immediately as the original post can send a very warped signal to those that read it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markofseven (talk • contribs) 19:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The main problem here is that the first sentence you have added to the section-Absence of liquor on the shelves in the open markets is what one observes in today's Mizoram-is written in the first person. Wikipedia always avoids doing this. No, actually further reading shows the main problem to be that most of that section is copied from the newspaper article which references it. It needs to be re-written or it will have to be removed as copyright infringement.--Charles (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.I will gladly take away the bit you said was improper for Wikipedia style presentation.This particular section had been so disturbing, so i just jumped in hoping to put some semblance of reality into it.It could well be that the author whoever has made it copied directly from some newspapers, like you suspected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markofseven (talk • contribs) 06:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

York Boarding Schools Group

Re your removal of a citation reference as "ludicrous." This is your point of view. In future please consult on talk page before removing referenced material.

Please try to avoid uncivil remarks. "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid profane and offensive language." WP:Civil Tomtolkien (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Worth School

Hello Charlesdrakew,

I notice that you edited the Worth School article in the past. I have adjusted the article, with some text removal, and have restructured the 'Notable' list. There has been some fruity to-ing and fro-ing in the past, so, as an editor of the article, I would like you to take a look. I have laid out my views, observations, suggestions and requests on the Talk:Worth School page.

Thanks, Acabashi (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Apart from general tidying and anti-vandalism schools are not really my field. My overal impression is that the article is mostly lists, when articles should mainly be in prose. The voluntary work section could be converted into a prose paragraph fairly easily. As for alumni the general test for notability is whether people merit their own page. User:Paste does a lot of work on schools and may be better able to advise.--Charles (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)