User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2011/August

Vote

Charles, we need your help deciding wether or not to change 'Creation Science' to 'Creation science'. Here's the link: [1] Wekn reven i susej eht (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

RE

Cant understand why you reverted the page and all of the sourced that I have used. (PAge: Bosniaks) I was at the moment posting sources for the parts that had a "citation needed" box. You did the revert and removal of my contribution to fast without consloving with me first.

When it comes to the numbers and figures in the infobox, all of the updated numbers was updated WITH sources! I do not poste anything without a source, unless it is already referred to this in som ohter parts of the text.

You have also reverted the pictures in the infobox of notable Bosniaks such as Edin Dzeko, Husein Gradascevic, SKender Kulenovic, Kemal Monteno and so on...? These are all Bosniaks with own wikipedia pages.

Please give me a message before you revert info that I have used days to gather and make it look good.

The official symbol of the Bosniaks is not just the golden Lilly, it is also the coat of arms with the 6 golden lillies.

Please put back the updated info that you reverted, I used several days on this, and give me a message about the parts you do not agree on so the contribution gets finalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalino7 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Add the sources with the text and it will not be reverted. Do you have reliable secondary sources?--Charles (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wich one of the sources do you need? I had at least ten new updates with sources that you reverted. Can you please specify wich one of them you disagree on? I can not hold back telling you that this is the first time my contributions has been reverted while all of the sources was at the right place.

The best you can do is to put back the updated info, and leave the "citation needed" boxes as it is now, and I will add sources before I remove them again. I belive this is the part you reacted on, not the other updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalino7 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not for me to decide. You can put back your changes by reverting my edit. Use the sources you think best and other editors will review it.--Charles (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yarmouth bus station

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Yarmouth bus station, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I agree that this needs merging into the settlement page but deletion would prevent that. TerriersFan (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Aurochs

Hi Charlesdrakew,

I am reading "The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World" (1884) by George Rawlinson (a Brit, like yourself!). In the notes section, I camre across the following:

"331. The Aurochs is still found in the Caucasus. Its four parts are covered by a sort of frizzled wool or hair, which "forms a beard or small mane upon the throat." ("Encycl. Brit." ad voc. Mammalia, vol. xiv. p. 215). Such a mane is often represented upon the sculptures [of Assyria]. (Layard, "Monuments," 1st Series, Pls. 32 , 46, etc.) Its horns are placed low, and are very thick. Its shoulders are heavy and of great depth. In height it measures six feet at the shoulder, and is between ten and eleven feet in length from the nose to the insertion of the tail. All these characteristics seem to me to agree well with the sculptured bulls of the Assyrians, which are far less like the wild buffalo (Bos bubalus)."

I don't know about the accuracy of this assertion, but I thought I would bring it to your attention...

Regards,

Dan Rosen, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.30.9 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Charles (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Katana

Hi Charles, I undid your deletion of the katana external link. While I understand your motive, I posted the link because the article lacks katana images, having only one photo of a bare blade at the top of the page. I thought it was important that readers be able to see museum-quality katana examples, especially since the photos are accompanied by their original museum labels which provide further detailed information on the specific pieces.Thanks, r Fashionistic (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see you have been adding links to the same website, and nothing else, to a number of weapons articles. This indicates that it may be your own self-published site and this would be a conflict of interest. We do not generally allow these type of links. Please read WP:EL.--Charles (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Charles, Yes, I was actually encouraged to join Wikipedia precisely because many weapon-related articles were starved for images or citations. Since I'd already compiled many topically-relevant images and citations in thematic webpages, linking seemed the most efficient way to make those references accessible to readers. Even though the links are self-published, the content is not my own; they're compilations from various sources I've researched. If I understand the WP:EL guidelines correctly, the conflict of interest you refer to is in regard to contributors who link to their own sites in order to promote their own views on a subject. As you can see, this is not what I've done; I simply point readers to references that are often lacking in the Wikipedia articles. Thanks, r Fashionistic (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously try adding quality content to articles instead of just external links. Can these images be uploaded to commons for use in pages? If not then your external links may be copyright infringement anyway. I still do not see that the link adds anything that would not be in a good article.--Charles (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Indians

Whether this sort of information belongs in the article has already been covered on the talk page. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglo-Indian#Indian_emmigration_to_the_UK_and_Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglo-Indian#Mixed_British-Indian_ethnicity

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romper (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Yo yo Charles, hows it hanging man??? Long time no see; I'm liking your recent wiki contributions. Keep up the good work, and let me know how you are wigga! --85.210.69.197 (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus routes in Winchester

Don't you think, what I wrote actually has to be there for me to be able to add references to it?!  Adam mugliston  Talk  16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the point. You never did. Probably because there arn't any for that sort of dross.--Charles (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I never did, because no one ever told me to put refs on this particular article. Plus, some things can't be referenced with secondary sources and that doesn't make them non-notable.  Adam mugliston  Talk  16:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually lack of secondary sources does make them non-notable.--Charles (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

How? For example, how am I suppose to prove, with your secondary sources the termini of a bus route?! Virtually impossible, yet still notable.  Adam mugliston  Talk  06:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? They are not my secondary sources. Everything published in Wikipedia should be verifiable by multiple secondary sources. Notability is conferred by significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. If this is not the case it does not belong here. Take it to Wikia.--Charles (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do get it. And by 'your' I meant Wikipedia's and it's members. For example, all towns, villages and even hamlets are notable. Yet still, many of them are not verifiable by secondary sources, because they are very small and nothing much ever happens, yet still they are notable. I'm happy here, thank you.  Adam mugliston  Talk  15:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many good references for settlement articles such as local history books, geology text books and online resources such as the Victoria County Histories. Just not enough editors working on them as yet.

Yes, but not for all of the small hamlets. Look, there will be a constant dispute about bus routes. At least for now, if they bother you don't look at them, but there are people who do. About the colours, none of them are particularly pale, may I suggest glasses?  Adam mugliston  Talk  15:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes even small hamlets in most cases. If not they will be redirected to the parish article. My eyesight is pretty good thank you and I know pale colours when I see them.--Charles (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case you shouldn't have a problem with pale colours and leave worrying about other people to themselves.  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So you don't care about anybody else? Well I do.--Charles (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool it please, Adam. The colours problem is a valid issue to raise, for the reasons already discussed (and already fixed) at the Colchester buses article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Demiurge, it's just I have a solution, thanks to you, and just need Charles to keep the colours for a while, as I'm not able to do them all at once. Though, Charles still seems to have a problem with the extra column...  Adam mugliston  Talk  20:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of bus routes in Peterborough. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Thought it was only two.--Charles (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit of my edit on the Creation Evolution Controversy Page: History

You asked to cite reliable sources, and deleted my entry. Yet my entry doesn't need reliable sources, because it was like saying, "The sky is blue" or "The earth rotates around the sun" which is now considered common knowledge. I put an unbiased entry regarding the biased entry already existing on this page. Please restore the notes, when you read them carefully. I will cite my sources next time, but it seems a bit redundant to cite a source for something like, "Humans exist" or "Hitler was a man" or "There is controversy between religions and science regarding evolution and creation". Do these kinds of statements need citations? If so, I will cite my sources. Thanks. Wikipedia is discouraging me from adding content because of the hasty and biased tyrants who rule these pages. This is why professors at colleges and universities say "Please do not use Wikipedia as a reference in your papers" because of you people who are driving the madness behind this poor and biased encyclopedia. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightofZion (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I cited reliable sources. Please tell me why you deleted my research yet again. Thank you. I just want to know how to contribute to this encyclopedia in a good way. If I can't find out the real reason for the deletion, I will stop contributing and contact Wikipedia authorities who might be able to help me understand. I have valuable research, and this is the point. Please help me to make a better impact. The history I included seemed relevant. Why do you determine my research is not? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightofZion (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(Explained various reasons why his edits should have been removed, while still addressing sources and trying to get him to go along with WP:NPOV and RS.) Ian.thomson (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Good on you for trying Ian but I think you are likely to get more sense from talking to a lamp post. Have a good weekend.--Charles (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking over his other edits, that seems likely, but the more things are explained amd the more detailed they're explained, the easier it'll be to say "he'll never positively contribute." You have a good weekend, too. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)