User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2016/January

Reverts to London Buses redirects

Even if you don't want the section links for some reason, why delete what I am attempting to make a useful sort order in the template? There's a much easier way to avoid the section links if you believe there is no consensus: Remove the anchors or anchor to the top of the article, rather than change the 300 or so links that I thought I had consensus to change. Si Trew (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not an improvement. There is longstanding consensus for the existing redirects.Charles (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please stop reverting while we discuss this. WP:BRD and all that. Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Where would you prefer to discuss this? At the talk page for List_of_bus_routes_in_London?

Even if you don't like the links to sections, I have been adding the route numbers in to the template – and using the template instead of a hard category – so that by the time I'm done we get a more sensible sort order in the category. Rather than revert, I think it would make (a little) more sense just to remove the section part of the redirect, but as I say, that can be achieved just by putting a "false" anchor on the target page, rather than reverting hundreds of redirects, while we discuss this. Can you point me at where consensus for linking to the article top, and not to sections, was achieved? Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Who wants to be redirected to a confusing redirect page. Complete cockup.Charles (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't come up with the redirect page, but the target. If I've missed so that the redirect page comes up instead of retargetting, yes, that or those are mistakes. But they can be fixed, without the need for reverting. I've started a conversation at Talk:List of bus routes in London. This list is very long so in my opinion to redirect to sections is entirely appropriate. What is WP:SURPRISEing is to redirect to the top of the article, with the given bus route nowhere in sight. Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for stopping the reverts, I have stopped changing them too. If you were just reverting those that I have somehow cocked up so that doesn't happen, then you are right to revert those few, but it seemed to me you were wholesale reverting all of them. To be clear, I used no tools to change them but edited each by hand. Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lewes page

How is a link to the stations website considered not relevant? A1Edd (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Try reading WP:EL. Only an article about that particular radio station would justify an official link.Charles (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

River Island

The retailer has moved from the Kirkgate Centre to The Broadway. The link below gives the River Island stores in West Yorkshire. I was quite happy with my original edit but got a message from a wiki bot about links... which I tried to fix, unfortunately a couple of retailers don't have a wiki page hence the outside links. I'll remove River Island from the Kirkgate list of retailers. Bradford4life (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC) http://www.riverisland.com/how-can-we-help/store-locator/Search?Query=Bradford&Women=false&Men=false&Kids=false&ChelseaGirl=false&Superstore=false&HollowayRoad=false&Mini=false&StyleStudio=false&AccessBoutique=false

Wikipedia is not a retail guide.Charles (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Righteous.12 a sock?

Could you explain what sockpuppetry is going on re [1]? --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe the editor to be another incarnation of of User:John.V.11122 and a bunch of similar names, all pushing the same POV about Arains. If I had more time I would launch a sock puppet investigation.Charles (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Righteous.12 is indef blocked for vandalism. I've added Arain to my watchlist. Judging by the recent editing history, I can see why you're concerned about sockpuppetry. --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

B5470 road

Not sure why you reverted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B5470 road? Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I had not intended to. Must have been an accidental click. I had hoped Davey would do it himself.Charles (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edits on SMRT Buses

Hello, you reverted my edits on SMRT Buses page. I do not see why it needs to be sourced as the buses exist in Singapore. There is no need for a source. You do not live in Singapore, I do. You should just leave our page alone and go bother about your london bus pages. These bus models are important information and it should be included in the page. The other operator SBS Transit has the same bus model section and it SHOULD be included. Please revert the edits as you clearly have poor knowledge on the buses of Singapore. 33ryantan (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not your page and any new content must be verifiable by reliable sources.Charles (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not your page either so if you think we are incompetent please revert the information and put in a source by yourself. I already put in a blog source but you claim it as "unreliable" and "unverifiable". Please look at my edit and put in a new source since you are so clever. You are treating the page as your own and you reverted the edits of so many kind hearted people which have put in correct and reliable information. 33ryantan (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable. If you add information you find the sources. Do not expect others to do the work for you.Charles (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok I went searching and found a SMRT SOURCE FROM THEIR WEBSITE. I've put in the source and reverted the edits so I think it is reliable now. 33ryantan (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject London Transport

Sorry for reverting your revert on WT:LT, but User:Class455fan1 letting that WikiProject know technically isn't canvassing, they count as an interested party in the context of a London bus route. Even though I'm sure that users intention was to get a load of people to support his case, he was within policy in that specific instance. (When he went down the line of poking specific people on their talk pages however, that was a different kettle of fish!) Jeni ^(talk) 09:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Notifying the project is allowed but urging others to participate and pointing out their own response seemed a bit much. You are right of course.Charles (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry all, didnt know that was known as canvassing Class455fan1 (talk to me) 10:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Section move

Hi Charles, Just to let you know that i moved the section that used to be at the top of your talk page about Norfolk Broads down to the 1st discussion under the contents box, and gave it a title. I did this because i thought that your talk page would look a bit more cleaner and to make it together with the other discussions, and its from August, so that discussion can be archived. If you don't like what i've done, then just revert it. Thanks! Class455fan1 (talk to me) 14:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Charles. As you probably may have seen on my edit summary, the above discussion wasn't archiving even though ClueBot III seemed to be archiving other discussions. I believe this was because this was beyond the age of your ClueBot III settings of when to archive. So I've moved it to your September 2015 archive box (as the posts in there were from late July, and that was the only close date to when this discussion was made initially). Hope this helps! Class455fan1 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And you have a good one.Charles (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Charles, Just wanted to pop by to say I wish you a very Happy New Year and I hope it's a good one! ... oh and thanks for putting up with my shit too! , Anyway have a great day, Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And a happy new year to you.Charles (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting "List of public transport routes in Adelaide"

Please can you stop reverting List of public transport routes in Adelaide. The info I'm putting up is correct as per www.adelaidemetro.com.au. On the 26th of January 2016, when the route changes are put into place and I change the Wikipedia page to be correct, are you going to revert it so it is incorrect again? One of your reasons for reverting the page was "lack of references" (or similar), and when I put some references in it got reverted back again. No offence, but I have lived in Adelaide all my life with an interest in public transport (buses in paticular), so I like to think I know a thing or two about buses in Adelaide, and, no offence, you probably don't, living on the other side of the world. So I ask you again, please stop reverting every single one of my changes, as it is getting really frustrating. By all means check the Adelaide Metro's website, my changes are all correct.

Ryan 868 (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ryan 868: Your changes are too detailed in terms of the routes and their intricacies and timings, even though they are referenced. This is why they are being undone. Rcsprinter¹²³ (notify) 11:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)