User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2012/March

Whitstable Entry

Please explain why you have reverted my edits on the Whitstable Page to a previous version - this version is incorrect and misleading considering the present position of The Community Collge Whitstable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzo1919 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your edits removed referenced text on the college's performance without explanation and only replaced it with promotional material. Please explain what you are doing by filling in the edit summary box and take time to read our policies on objective editing.--Charles (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for the information - can you tell me how to have the following removed from the entry:

The school had been repeatedly ranked one of the worst secondary schools in Kent over the past few years. The failings have been blamed on poor leadership and governance, as well as lack of professional staff development. The school has also reportedly spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on failed IT projects over the past 6 - 8 years. Companies contracted to fulfil these projects pulled out, leading to multiple failed projects. One such company was NT4L (New Technologies 4 Learning), a relatively small entity.

This is not referenced and untrue - the school has been recognised as one of the most improved schools in Kent (last year) and this has been written by a disgruntled ex-employee and refers to incorrect assertions with absolutely no basis. Please let me know how I can complain about the entry if it can not be removed. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzo1919 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course you may remove material that is unsourced if refrences cannot be found for it. Just leave what is referenced. You should be able to find more up to date inspection results to show if the school has improved. As for complaining that should be on the article talk page in the first instance.--Charles (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Metrication in the United Kingdom. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Particularly your subjective use of the word "small" in relation to the survey results. Thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 11:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikilawering is no substitute for the reliable sources that you have spectacularly failed to provide. It is time to take your soapbox home and stop disrupting the project.--Charles (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Small grains"

Thanks for answering my question at the Teahouse! I wanted to float a couple of ideas on the topic and see what you thought. I originally figured that the revised heading for the merged article combining Feekes scale, Zadoks scale, and BBCH-scale (cereals) could be changed to something like "Small grain growth stages." Interestingly, I found that searching for "small grain" only brings me to cereal. Scales like Zadoks (at least to my knowledge) are really just used for wheat and other small grains, not really including maize. Or perhaps the phrase "small grains" is not as ubiquitous as I imagined? Small grains appear, at least to me (as a US citizen), to be a specific sub-class of cereals with their own peculiarities for management. Is that a track that's already been pursued and rejected? Or should there be an entire article specifically for small grains that then could include a Wikipedia:Summary style section linking to an article on the scaling systems? And to think, all I wanted to do was wikify one article... :O

Thanks for all the help! Pusillanimous 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. What you call small grains we in the United Kingdom call corn and what you call corn we call maize! I think getting the scales together in one article and then linking that article to other cereals articles would work best. It is common to have a short section in a more general article with a hatnote link such as {{Main|Cereal growth stages}} at the top of the section. I have not looked into the grain articles as I tend to stay away from work related stuff on wiki and keep it as a separate interest. Not that I mind you asking. Not at all.--Charles (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I can start working on that — perhaps then it'd be appropriate to include all growth stages of cereals (including Zea mays) in that combined article, not just the ones like Zadoks. Perhaps one final question on the subject (for now) — the specifics of a scale like Zadoks can vary (I believe) based on the crop you're evaluating. Large numbers (10, 20, etc) may be similar, but in my opinion it may not be appropriate to have an actual example scale in the article (instead, perhaps, some external resources?). Would you agree? How can I survey for consensus on this issue? I'm learning so much about wikipedia my head may explode... --Pusillanimous 19:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is generally preferred to use links to external resources rather than importing large amounts of data. As an encyclopedia we try to cover subjects comprehensively without going into excessive detail. The detail should be available in the references. The external links section can be used to link to further resources subject to the policy on links. If you place the proposed merge templates on the articles and nobody has objected after a couple of weeks feel free to proceed. Nobody is going to mind you making mistakes if you are editing in good faith. The community is very supportive of genuine editors and surprisingly tolerant of troublemakers like the one in the section above this up to a point.--Charles (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

SOLA HELP

SOLA HELP PLEASE Sola2012 (talk

Hello

I started working in Wikipedia through some stuff on the various articles, but I have a problem

Today I was surprised that some of the things that i have added in a specific article has been deleted, I am sure that with a very reliable source.

Why are deleted when the amendments are absolutely reliable sources??

Please answer Thanks answer

Hi Sola, could you be more precise on which article you were editing and what the issue was? I moved your new post into a separate heading since I noticed it fell under a different communication. Also, don't forget to sign your posts! --Pusillanimous 16:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

sola help 2

hi im talking about bruno mars article i have add about his album sales worldwide which has sold over 4.8 copies worldwide and i just wonder why some user delete things when i have a real score and im sure this is my score ::: http://www.musicharts.net/index.php?cat=yechart&year=2011&chid=0}}

please answer thanksssssssssss --sola$$$$$$$$ (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think your edits are being incorrectly reverted say why you think that on the talk page of the article concerned as the first step in the dispute resolution process.

Metrication in the United Kingdom

Hi Charlesdrakew

Would you please look at my page User:Martinvl/MitUK and review my comments in preparation for posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance. Also, once posted, would you be good enough to certify Defacto's behaviour.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I undeleted it to have a look. Guess what? It has been deleted again. I contested the speedy as as I believe you are allowed to collect factual material. This is starting to look like stalking and I have other concerns about that editor's behaviour.--Charles (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm here on your talk page

Ok, I'm here on your talk page. But the only way I could add a comment was by clicking on the edit button on the post of the previous person. Is there any other way?

Also, How will I know if you responded to this talk if you respond on your page? Do I have to watch this page?

I'm new...help me out
NK (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a "new section" tab at the top of the page but the way you did it works too. I am not around all the time but if you go over to the Teahouse there are friendly hosts with a wide range of experience who can advise you. Anything specific i can help with?--Charles (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

SOLA2012

Hi i add some things in article but the User:Dan56 delete all my edits and i tried dispute resolution process and the article talk page and i tried to talk to the user but nothing work . help me please --- and i need a help and by the way the score is real and im sure . the article about bruno mars album. thanks pleae help .--sola$$$$$$$$ (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on the editor's talkpage. It is probably about WP:Citing sources.--Charles (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My bad. I had encountered similar edit summaries from patronizing vandals. I gave him a level 1 warning and told him his site is not a reliable source. Dan56 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--Charles (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

sola2012

Hello First I want to thank you for helping me all the time I want your help is about a specific article The article talks about an Israeli player and mentioned in the article is absolutely true But in the end of the page there are groups There are two categories not have any relationship with the subject, I've mentioned in the first category, although the Arabs of Israel is an Israeli player In the second category mentioned players Palestine But we know that Israel is a country, and Palestine is not another city in Israel and should not be the existence of these two categories on the page and the article includes an Israeli player, not a Palestinian.

the link of the player article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Ghadir --sola$$$$$$$$ (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to go to the talkpage of the article and ask about it there. Allow several days for other editors to see it and reply. Things do not always happen quickly on Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ACP2011

Hi Charles – thanks for your note; I'll pick this up now. The new DYK template system isn't the easiest thing, but I'll fix the nomination and explain how it works. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That is most kind.--Charles (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thank you very much, I do not speak English very well but thanks for the welcome. I hope to help me much. --D vsquez (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue One - Recent news from the Teahouse

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

Spring has sprung! Stop by the Teahouse for a cup of tea under the cherry blossoms.

• Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
• A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
• Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nominations

Hi Charles. I just wanted to let you know that I believe that I just managed to submit two of my articles for nomination. Thanks for your help. Anne (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added some links to the templates with bolded ones for the actual article. The DYK process has changed since I last used it. I think you are supposed to put the templates on the date you nominated them rather than when they were moved to mainspace but I am sure the regulars there will help out.--Charles (talk) 11:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hello Charles, thank you for your invitation to join the teahouse. At the moment, I'm a bit busy but I'll try to pop by tomorrow or in the next couple of days. I take it we bring our own tea? Regards --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not compulsory! No we provide the tea or we can even rustle up a coffee if you prefer. We can help with any questions you may have on editing.--Charles (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Hi, You seem nice and kind Lunarocks12 (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

thanks Aserho (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a question at the Teahouse you might have interest in...

Dear Charlesdrakew, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Because of you I am Lolsmileyfaceing for you!!!

hardy hardy har har!!! ;^)

MaijahEvans11 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)