User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2015/June

Lindsell

Dear User,

I appreciate your editing to the Lindsell article, my interpretation of the age structure data was from the 2011 census data which i thought to be appropriate considering the patterns that were clearly present within this data. Perhaps, but please be aware that Wikipedia is not a place to publish your personal analysis or synthesis of various sources.Charles (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto

This is about your reverts on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benazir_Bhutto&action=history

Quoting from wikipedia policy on using video links "If the material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia".

This particular speech has been discussed in interview with the speaker and she has clearly admitted to making that speech.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/devils-advocate-benazir-bhutto/15678-2.html http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/dec/31guest1.htm

I have contacted NewsX (which is a popular news channel in India, which produced the content and uploaded the video to on youtube channel) to see if we can get an un-edited copy of the original speech. In any case I feel it is appropriate that it should be mentioned in the article, to give a balanced perspective. 2401:FA00:9:11:418B:2255:9932:D8A1 (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:FA00:9:11:418B:2255:9932:D8A1 (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Care to comment on this?? 2401:FA00:9:11:C050:1B7E:B3CB:ACC0 (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Castel Sant'Angelo

Please could you look at Castel Sant'Angelo. Either the IPs or I am mistaken. I do not want to press further. SovalValtos (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Tony Holkham has now reverted, but either the IPs or myself might need warning about where we are going wrong. SovalValtos (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The editor in question has been persistent across a number of articles and has been reported. See User talk:81.129.34.107 Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Good work guys. My internet connection is so slow these days it takes ages to check through things but I have watchlisted it.Charles (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuing interest. Having got fibre broadband in the last year, it is astonishing how en:wikipedia has by far the fastest responding servers, much better than the popular ebay, BBC and google, let alone most commercialsites. Money well spent to keep us editors with our noses to the grindstone. I expect you know much more about it than I do, but it can help to stop email and other programs. SovalValtos (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I live at the end of a very long copper cable and that is not likely to change.Charles (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I can empathise. Something called "Superfast Cymru Broadband" has not passed this way. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I used dial-up well beyond the time most had changed to broadband so I also sympathise. With any luck your long copper cables might be stolen and have to be replaced with fibre! (I do not use emoticons so, 'joke'). I do think that wiki project Wales might upgrade TH's ten year old iPad to a five year old one, given the amount of work being done.... SovalValtos (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

They should. Most of our copper cables are underground so I cannot see thieves going to the effort of digging it out!Charles (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

West Chiltington Village

Charles, whilst I understand your 'normal' restrictions on web links, you should note that the PC website is hopelessly out of date ('news' from 2012? - have a look) and the link I provided is provided free for club/community/Neighbourhood Watch etc use - and is up to date! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.212.17 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The link you provided is not suitable for Wikipedia. I suggest you ask the PC to get their act together.Charles (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Lourdes_Medical_Bureau continued vandalisation

You recently undid an edit of mine of the page Lourdes_Medical_Bureau, no doubt hoping that I would not realise. In the edit, you asked for sources I did not provide. Most of what I added to the article (note that I did not remove anything) or the amendations I am responsible for do not call for sources. Most of these are simply clarifications of speech or elaborations on what the original writer was trying to convey. For those that do call for this, I have added proper sources but you still seem to think this is insufficient and keep undoing the edit. I have applied your level of scrutiny in my second revision of this page to the rest of its contents, scouring it for the countless baseless assertions it makes and whimsical-at-best sources it cites as evidence. As a result of your continued vandalism of this page, the following occurs:

- You take issue with the validity of a Youtube video as a claim. This is a carbon copy of a documentary. Not only will I do you the courtesy of not allowing myself to believe you are suggesting that, as soon as any content, regardless of type or how insightful, well-researched and unbiased it is, makes its way to Youtube, the entire premise and everything that can be seen is wholly invalidated. That would simply be absurd. Furthermore, in the same object I attributed the Youtube video as a source, I also did added a reference to the book the featured documentary is essentially an excerpt from. Had you taken the time to sample either, I'm sure you would have realised this.

- You also blatantly assert that, firstly, I did not add valid and/or sufficient sources to back up my additions or amendments. Looking at the content that existed on this page prior to my edit with an equally discerning eye, one can easily determine that the bulk of the page consists of assertions with no sources. In undoing my additions under the premise of me not having cited sources and asking me to do so even if I currently have, you also remove the open question on the page itself for clarification of sources. The difference between my interaction with the page and yours is that I do not simply stifle the information being presented, I merely ask for more ([citation needed]).

- Secondly, with the same mouth that you condemn my reliable sources or, as you say (sans investigation, apparently): the lack thereof, you commend the other contributor(s) to the article for their sources (originally eight), of which the first three are one-sidedly out of the first book, the fourth is a news article broadcasting coverage and would therefore require a source of its own, so should not count; a broken link and three well outdated books that have never been translated out of Dutch and French (respectively), likely because of their biases.

Anything that can be gathered out of the original references is either extremely biased or simply an account of the information displayed on the page existing, not a verification or validation of the truth of their claims. The body of the page's content, which is, as I said largely unsourced is one-sided and often begs sources, but there are entire consecutive sections with not so much as a dead link. The most valid source by the quality standards of the page would be coming from my addition, which you seem to take issue with and regardless of reality, continue to treat as "not a reliable source".

Simply clicking a button to revert additions to a page because you may not agree with what was added or changed is not what the standards of contribution from a user with as many "badges" as you seem to possess (whatever indicator of fair or intelligent treatment of a page or other user that may be) require from you. Hence, I can only urge you to cease this vandalism and assure you that, should you attempt to continue to prevent my additions or alterations any further, which do promote a more critical and neutral standpoint compared to what the bulk of the page originally had while adding more and more valid sources, your reverts will simply be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikingFusion (talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Irish Army

I went through the edit history and saw that an IP user added the flag display. You came out of no where and undid a good edit. I have seen plenty of military articles with flagicons. I also see a lot of flagicons in boxing articles. So clearly that rule doesn't apply for every article. Manny better rank users don't seem to mind the flags in the infobox. You keep putting "MOS:INFOBOXFLAG" on your edit summaries. A flag doesn't always have to be removed. @SovalValtos: "Obscure edit summary. Unintelligible, please take to talk" Your edit summary makes you look bad. Next time read the edit history well before making such a absurd edit summary.

What happens in other articles is beside the point. They may be, and often are, incorrect. There are exceptions but there is no reason for this to be one. No information is added by the flag icon. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is very clear."Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text.

If you wish to address SoralValtos please do so at his talkpage, not mine.Charles (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)