User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2017/March

Chin up

Don't let the 'enthusiastic' people get you down, they're the sort of people who will just edit war until they get their own way. I've seen it a million times before on WP, it's what makes this place toxic. Jeni ^(talk) 21:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. There are bumps and potholes on the route to having fewer routes but the overall situation has vastly improved over the last few years. Keep up the good work.Charles (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger

Hi, I left a response to (hopefully) address your concerns at Talk:Leeds. Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to be able to state my case without a running commentary that verges on harassment.Charles (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Charlesdrakew. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Woodham Ferrers

I do not understand your comment that the reference to my small edit to the Woodham Ferrers article was spam. Edwins Hall is a significant building in Woodham Ferrers which will, when I get around to it, have a Wikipedia entry. That this building was damaged as a result of wartime air activity which is already mentioned is, therefore, notable. The news article quoted itself appears well sourced and as such should be an acceptable source. Or have I misunderstood something? Shipsview (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you not find a source which does not flash adverts at us? From the newspaper archives of the time perhaps. Please note that adding text with a citation is not a minor edit.Charles (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice about a minor edit. Disliking advertisements is not a valid reason for removing a citation - or the fact it supports. But you know that!! Shipsview (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Cricket Bat

I'll find a citation for the new restrictions on bat sizes. The changes to the sections on brands and shapes are from personal experience making the said brands. I'm not sure how you would change them with any published press release but there are plenty of blatant brand claims on the page that don't back themselves up with one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Keeley (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Christoper. I am afraid your personal experience will not do for Wikipedia. We require published sources. If there are other unverified claims on the page they should be removed. Please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes (~).Charles (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)