User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2013/November

Move/rename? Unpatrolled pages

For example - Should these be retitled? CBA TBCU, JSBA TBCU, KOKBA TBCU and UBA TBCU. All looking to be patrolled. Can one tag to recommend a move or should I just go and move these to appropriately named pages? They are also unreferenced --Antiqueight ^confer 14:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think these should all be redirected to the article of the parent organisation, as set out in WP:Notability (organizations and companies), specifically WP:BRANCH. I would be inclined to boldly redirect them as those pages names will be good as search terms. To create a redirect delete the content apart from the categories and replace with #REDIRECT [[Target article name]]. If they are recreated send them to Articles for Deletion.--Charles (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you lost me - I presume I would copy and paste the content to the parent org page first? Shouldn't I put a merge tag on the page and give the creator a chance to copy it over before that? --Antiqueight ^confer 22:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If there was any reliably sourced encyclopedic content that would be the case but there is nothing here except directories of primary source or unsourced non-notable material. Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory. I have boldly redirected them with an edit summary showing the policy justification. If it is reverted then we can talk about it. That is the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle by which Wikipedia works.--Charles (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool - I'll be able to take a look later and see what you did. I do need to work on bold! ;-)--Antiqueight ^confer 22:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Cowes

A tad rude tbf. I've kept another copy [1], so I might re-create it one day. Editor5807^speak 22:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all rude and you are not allowed to keep deleted articles in user space indefinitely.--Charles (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Past life regression by undoing my change to remove it. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. sys2074 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Summarising what is referenced in the body of the article is not personal analysis.--Charles (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sea holly

Evening, Charles. Thanks for catching my edit to the Climping sand dunes - I forgot for a moment that I was on a Sussex page and put a tropical species link there by accident. Your revert wasn't very kind, however; plosive edit summaries don't help with anything. Really, I think the "sea" name is a bit misleading. I'd like it if you were more constructive than abusive in your wording in future. Do you watch all West Sussex articles? Rcsprinter (talk) @ 19:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It was not an "accident". It was sloppy editing which added misinformation to Wikipedia. Quantity of edits instead of quality.--Charles (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Qigong edit

Hi, you have undone the edit with the remark circular reference. The reference is actually a forward reference to the controversy section below which provides a better summary. So1308 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We have the table of contents for that.--Charles (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)