User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2016/March

Email

Hi Charles. I think your email address has been hijacked. I got a message from you with a weird link (http://www.yenpaolai.com/sweet.php?sign=kxnt1xewqm1561pn which needless to say I didn't open). Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I will change my password.Charles (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a charlesdrakew@gmail account, not mine, sending me spam too.Charles (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

army cadet force edits

why have you removed my factual edits , are you a member ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.42.112 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would I need to be a member?Charles (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

to have some actual real infomation on the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.42.112 (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In support of Charles's edits. Firstly, you do not need to be a member of the organisation to reply to your unreferenced "edits". Secondly, none of your comments are supported by sources, which Wikipedia requires. Thirdly, none of your comments have been signed - again a requirement. I respectfully suggest that you desist, as you appear not to follow any editing conventions. David J Johnson (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Profile101

Hi Charles. Just wanted to let you know this user appears to claim that he has some sort of relation to you, as he says that his "main user" is from you, when its obviously not true, because you're British and this user is Singaporean. Just wanted to make you aware. Class455fan1 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone has created a google gmail account with my username. I do not know that is related to this user's activity. Any mail from charlesdrakew@gmail is not from me.Charles (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly this user. If you think it is this user, let Bishonen know. Class455fan1 (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User is now blocked for disruption. If this email is still in use, you might want to read this: [[1]]. Hope this helps! Class455fan1 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

County town of Surrey

In what way do you believe that the claim that "Guildford is the historic county town of Surrey" is "...bleedin' obvious"? There is no hard and fast evidence anywhwere that Guildford ever was the county town of Surrey. The reference you give makes the claim but contains no reference of its own where the claim comes from (there are references for many other points, but not for this claim - it must be considered an unreliable source for the claim for this reason).

The position is complicated because Guildford's previous official historian is determined to get Guildford recognised as the county town and he frequently makes claims that it both curently is and always was, and that the status was conferred by Henry III. In fact someone copied the claim onto the talk page:

--"Henry III confirmed Guildford's status as the county town of Surrey in 1257" from the Guildford site: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/GuildfordWeb/Leisure/Guildford+Museum/GuildfordSites/HistoryNotes/Medieval+Guildford.htm

Two problems here. At the time the claim was on Guildford Museum's website, the curator was that very historian pushing the 'Guildford is the county town' line. Second, when he retired and the new curator (also a historian) took over, the claim was almost instantly removed and he refuted it. It is not unlikely that British History online got the claim from the official Guildford historian at the time.

It is known that before London expanded in 1965 the county town of Surrey was definitely Kingston upon Thames (at that time within the boundaries of Surrey - just). Indeed although now within London, Kingston still retains a postal address of Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, KT1 Etc. There is no evidence that the role of county town was transferred to Kingston from anywhere else or indeed when Kingston became the county town or when it ceased to be the county town (if, indeed, it has). It is this lack of evidence that is the main problem. Apparently, the current edition of Whitaker's Almanac lists the County town of Surrey as Kingston upon Thames.

The position is somewhat blurred today because neither Kingston nor Guildford officially claim to be the county town. Although there are tourist type sites that claim the status for Guildford, they are almost certainly 'buttering the visitor's bread' to some extent. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert to Ashurst Wood Page

I would be grateful if you would let me know what is wrong with the update to the page so that I can correct it. Thanks Nakedtruthpublications (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If I can enter your discussion here. Firstly, your contribution is in entirely the wrong position, it should be at the end of the Talk page and certainly not at the top. I believe the reason for Charles's reversion was that that the "edit" contained no references and appears to be "spam". Also your user name implies that you are editing on behalf of a commercial organisation, which is again against Wikipedia policy. Charles is a very experienced editor and his comments should be listened to. David J Johnson (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback however, I was actually asking Charles for his comments - seems there are none. Forgive the name but the edit is genuinely trying to update the page to reflect some recent changes to the Village governance. Ok, so I'm not an experienced WIKI user, but blimey you lot aren't helpful. I'll try to improve the references. Kindly don't undo until I have completed it. If the name bothers you I'll create another one. Nakedtruthpublications (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Charles or no other editor are here to answer your queries immediately. If you read your own Talk page, you will see the objections to your "edits" - which are unsourced and contain your own WP:POV views and also your User name - all of which are against Wikipedia policies. You also ask that your edits are not undone "until I have completed it". Edits should only be placed once they are completed and properly sourced, not the half completed version. Also you are edit warring by reverting experienced editors contributions without adequate reason. Continued reverts could see you blocked from editing. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits on User Talk Pages

Hi, what ever you just put, only adminstrators can block people, but you're not. Please read every pages about adminstrators and put (admin-help). But must give the instructions first.

Unsigned comment by Eeditflyover (Talk) on 7 February 2016 at 10:41 (UTC).

I do not need to be an admin to get disruptive editors blocked, and I often do.Charles (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This user could possibly be a sock of Profile101. Class455fan1 (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing of Inside York from York Wikipedia page

Hi Charles, thanks for the email.

In response I would still like to fight the corner for the link www.insideyork.co.uk being left if ok please. I realise the guidelines can't have advertising etc, but this is one of the main guides to the city available for both tourism, local businesses as well as a lot of historical information, city walking map etc.

Also the site has been running since 2006 so is well established and also offers news and press releases for York, most of which are for smaller local residents, fairs, events etc that would not be listed on sites where users would have to pay for advertising. Although advertising is offered, listings are also free and news publication about York is completely free.

It would be a good resource to include, even if it is just a link to a sub page for the free map or a information section about the history if not the homepage.

Also just to let you know this link is broken which is also published on the York page so may need correcting or removing: http://www.thisisyork.net/photos.php?l=en

Thanks very much,

Jonah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hostingyorkshire (talk • contribs) 13:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The link is against Wikipedia external links policy and will be removed. You seem to have a conflict of interest and also a username which fails our username policy. Enough said?Charles (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Charles, I'm not sure what the conflict of interest is? It is in the interest of users reading about York to have more information about the City. I am not trying to promote a service or advertise anything, just add a York resource to the York wiki page. The same could be said for this site which is listed on the York page also offering a Virtual Tour, they aren't a sole source of reference or information and could also be seen as a conflict of interests? http://www.vryork.com/

I am happy to update my username if there is a problem with it, apologies but I haven't used Wikipedia as a user a great deal. I will try and update my username now if there is a way to do this? Thanks again for any clarification on why the link is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hostingyorkshire (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You might want to read WP:RENAME if you would like to change your username. Class455fan1 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

--

Hi thanks I've now updated my username. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahnaylor1980 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

First Norfolk & Suffolk

I'm new to editing wikipedia, but I see you've completely deleted everything I've done on the above page. Quoting no reliable source. I am a bus enthusiast in constant connection with First, and all I did was update the pictures so readers can see the modern fleet First own in this region. Whats the harm in that and what did I do wrong? They also don't have anywhere near as many buses as listed on the fleet numbers but you changed that back too. I just wondered why this is. If I'm doing anything wrong please let me know so I can rectify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakNelson1995 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Literally everything on that page is out of date, all I did was update it. The X1 bus for example doesn't look like that anymore, they have brand new ones. The livery on that Ipswich bus doesn't exist anymore, I updated the picture to the new livery. I'm just trying to keep the page up to date. Please tell me how this is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakNelson1995 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You will need to find reliable sources for any changes you make. If you are connected with the company you may also have a conflict of interest.Charles (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a photograph of the actual buses the company operate are relaible sources don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakNelson1995 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Photos are not used as reliable sources on Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

How are the photos that are used reliable then? They're out of date, and quite frankly crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZakNelson1995 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ZakNelson1995: The photos in the article are not sources. See also WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO, because Wikipedia is not the place to plug your fansite (which does not meet our reliable sourcing standards even if someone else decided to cite it). Ian.thomson (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits in East London (bus company) concerning route 69.

Route 69 transferred to Tower Transit on the 6th February 2016. That's why I did that edit. Here's my evidence and proof of that. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gloriouswater/24248845724/in/photolist-DAHGCm-DS1GMX-DRZznD-DQ45Kc-DVaAxw-Du5DYU-CWMF1Y-DRCzry-DRgDVA-DRgDhw-CW5Asm-Dk6Rgz-Dk6F1K-DJbJWz-DJ8oZB-DqgVLC-DQ4atf-DFXCn1-CUYVjM-DFXvmY-DQ3ZeY-DiSM1T-DHXJ5a-DSaZDZ-DHqHgu-CUHjCH-DnRx8S-DK3Qtb-DAXfx9-DBWWHD-CEpC9f-DBUbAe-CEtKWv-DzwHRs-DwEZrB-CyDnPb-DtNZAN-D4ZpYJ-Des66N-DcTRfF-DkaCFn-Dk9Zhp-CL5Wm4-CWGBvQ-CC87P3-D41mAv-CTqsQo-CTpbqw-D3X53g-C522PX — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrC00leb (talk • contribs) 05:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MrC00leb: I see a bus that says "Walthamstow Central , 69." That's it. Flickr fails our reliable sourcing standards as a user generated source (so comments on it don't really hold up). Ignoring that, then your interpretation of the photo goes against our no original research policy.

Wikipedia isn't about "proof," it's about summarizing professionally published sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Would this count as proof, https://tfl.gov.uk/forms/13796.aspx?btID=1255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrC00leb (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

For the transfer yes but not for the above date.Charles (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70

Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 403, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 70 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni ^(talk) 16:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

London Midland

Hi Charles,

First of all, sorry for reverting you on London Midland, I'm sure that you were acting in good faith. However I strongly feel that this was a perfectly valid edit, the table structure is used in other train operating company articles (though there seems to be no standard structure, and there are still a handful that still use prose). The editor that implemented it did put it out for discussion on the talk page, however nobody responded, it's fair to say that there was no objections to his changes.

I hope you're day is going well so far! Jeni ^(talk) 10:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I don't suppose there is any of that chocolate cake left? WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an argument for replacing existing prose content with more tables. It would be better to clean up the existing content than to introduce more tables, contrary to WP:PROSE, that push articles further towards being a directory and advertising commercial services.Charles (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I always have chocolate cake! :-D I think the nature of services sections lend themselves to more of a tabular format, as long as we don't start getting into the nooks and crannys of the once a day, when Jupiter is aligned with Mars type entries. I don't think WP:PROSE would mandate against a table format in this instance, as the existing service sections are *generally* in a list-type format already. Perhaps this is a wider discussion we should be having on one of the Wikiprojects? Whatever happens, some sort of consensus needs to be generated on a fairly standard format across the board, as the current situation is far too much of a mish mash! I hope you don't take any of this personally, we usually seem to agree on most things! Jeni ^(talk) 12:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current Metro Local routes. Thank you. TJH2018 (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There was no failure to AGF. When an editor has so much to say in a discussion you might hope that they would "come to court with clean hands" as the saying goes. You would hope they would have fundamental knowledge of and respect for Wikipedia's most fundamental policies, of which the most essential is verifiability. When they then make an unsourced and unexplained change to the very article under discussion it is perfectly reasonable to point this out. PBP is lucky to have got off without a warning in this instance.Charles (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)