User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2017/September

Nottingham Sport and Education

Hi Charles. I couldn't help noticing that you had undone my recent edits to the Sport and Education sections of the Nottingham page, saying they appeared "unconstructive". How is adding a sentence in brackets or changing 3 numbers "unconstructive"? OllieS (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2017 (UCT)

What is your source for the new figure? If you have one cite it.Charles (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What about you taking that sentence out? OllieS (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2017 (UCT)

Essex and Suffolk

Hi Charles, thank you for your welcome, I thought it would be a good idea to add Relevant comments to the Essex and Suffolk areas I have visited whilst bird watching, hopefully the information will encourage more walking and bird watching Greenfinch77 (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia only uses facts from reliable published sources, so while your intention is good personal observations are treated as original research and removed. Please do research published sources and edit accordingly.Charles (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Nearest places" templates

Hi, I noticed you have removed the "nearest places" templates from a number of articles about Bexley and Dartford locations. Could I ask what your objection to these templates is? I find them to be pleasant and informative, and much more user friendly than trying to visualise similar information articulated in text! On the Dartford article, for example, the text does not contain all the information presented clearly in the template.. Jdcooper (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

In my experience consensus among editors who work on settlements is to not use them. They take up a lot of space for limited information and attract listmakers who "helpfully" add more and more places. I have seen towns 50 miles away added. Wikipedia is supposed to be mainly written in prose rather than endless little boxes, and prose can better describe how a place relates topographically or economically to surrounding settlements.Charles (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Stow Maries

Hello I edited the Stow Maries page as there were some inaccuracies and it did not contain much of the features of our village. I live in Stow Maries and know the history and buildings. I don't see any citations for much of the info on the page otherwise you would realise that the info on the page is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpediem42 (talk • contribs)

Hi Carpediem.Wikipedia requires published sources for any facts. Your personal observations are not enough. This may seem over the top but it is the only way we can be sure it is correct, as we do not know if individual editors are genuine or hoaxing us. If there is wrong information just remove it with an explanation. Sources for a lot of historic buildings can be found in Pevner's Buildings of England at your local library.Charles (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You have treated this contributor very harshly. I assume you mean "Pevsner" - please at least get your "facts right !!90.199.99.38 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

When you have made 45,000 edits over 10 years, as I have, you can start criticising my editing.Charles (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Cricket in Roxwell

I'm not sure who decides whether information is "reliable" or how the criteria are set. The league in question has been running for 40 years and currently involves in excess of 1,000 players every week - its activities are widely reported in the local media. However, it seems that this kind of information may not be welcome on Wikipedia so perhaps all sporting competitions of whatever size should be excluded.90.199.99.38 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If this has been "widely reported in the local media" there should not be any problem with referencing it to reliable secondary sources. Until this is done the refimprove tag stays.Charles (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You clearly have an aversion to local cricket - although much smaller football leagues somehow pass muster - so I've done the decent thing and removed all references to this subject.

One wonders how many of your much-trumpeted edits have been constructive rather than undoing the work of contributors whose material doesn't suit your personal taste.2.216.82.255 (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing against cricket although I am out and about too much to actually watch it. Properly sourced content proportional to the page it is on is just fine.Charles (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)