User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2021/October

adopt me?

👋 Hi! Can you please adopt me? You seemed like the best fit on the adoption page for me.

--Gaurarjun (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I have too much else going on right now.Charles (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Then could you please put yourself as not available please? Heroe Of Time (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible adoption

hi. i was wondering if it is possible for you to adopt me, under the Wikipedia program to do? I could really use your help and input. I appreciate it. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Er, you have been editing longer even than I have. Why do you want adoption?Charles (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

well, since you state that you have an interest in history of England, I can use all the input from editors of historical topics that I can get. could you please have a look at WP:History, and let me know of anything that you might like to suggest that we do there, that you would consider useful, worthwhile, beneficial, or supportive of editors like yourself in any way? History is an art form, and Wikipedia can be our canvas. I welcome any ideas, input, feedback, or comments that you may have. thanks!!---Sm8900★ 🌎 04:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I am interested in history but I am not a historian, so I will have to pass.Charles (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Adoption Request

Hi Charlesdrakew, I am Dishita Bhowmik. I have been on wikipedia for sometime even though I have been more active recently. Your name was listed as Available adopter. I am not exactly a newbie; I know Wikipedia policies, understand vandalism and sometimes review recent changes to find and warn vandals, have created two mainspace articles and done some other work. But I still think that Adoption would help me a lot. Would you like to adopt me? Yours, DishitaBhowmik 17:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC) To reply please ping because I edit on the web so general mentions don't come up on my notices.

Hi. If you need any advice feel free to ask.Charles (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much Charles, but it's not about a single advice. I would have asked, even if I didn't know you (on Wikipedia of course). I have come across many civil and very helpful admins, and I frequently ask for suggestions if I am doubtful. But I want a thorough training, and unfortunately none of the people who are already helping me out are not adopters. On the Adopters page there were two people who appealed to me. However the other adopter already had two adoptees so I requested you. If you are currently busy, it is alright. DishitaBhowmik 14:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow reply. I have had a busy few days. I like what you are doing already. Are there any particular areas of editing you want to get into?Charles (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Currently, I am not very specific as I have said above. But I would like to work more in creating new articles (for example see the current draft I am working on) and in GA nominations and reviews. DYK nominations are also of interest. DishitaBhowmik 15:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

For the draft article it would be helpful to have reference sources that are independent of the industry and even of the nation. The Indian government source reads more like an advertisment than hard statistics. International tea trade organisations or the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation perhaps?Charles (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Controversies sections

I am coming across articles with Controversy sections separate to the History section. Links not to hand but could add them as I come across them if wanted though I think you will have seen some. I think the 'Controversies' should be integrated into History. Having separate sections seems to dramatise part of history which is just part of the flow of life. Editors with axes to grind may wish to downplay unpleasantness or promote it depending on their PoV by having a separate section. Have you any thoughts with reference to policy or guidelines? Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The essaysWikipedia:Criticism and Wikipedia:Don't "teach the controversy" are not policy but useful I think. Separate criticism sections are generally discouraged and tend to act as coatracks for POV-pushing editors to hang undue stuff on. My instinct is that you are right. You may find more expert opinion than mine at WP:Village pump. Keep safe.Charles (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you the links should be useful in supporting changes I may make. At least they help with the words I was struggling to form.SovalValtos (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

United Nations Secretary-General opinion

I came across this [1] possible source via a news item. I would not like to see it being used on its own without being balanced by other sourced opinions as it seems to push a particular PoV. How about population growth, global warming or nuclear war as being equal or graver tests for the world if not UN? Is there a means of establishing whether a linked source such as this has been used so as to be able to give an alternative? Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again SovalValtos. Interesting. It is just one man's opinion however much expert advice he has taken. Some projections from Imperial College academics suggest the infection could kill 40 million people worldwide in the absence of control measures. Even a limited scale nuclear war would be likely to kill many more people, mostly indirectly from disruption of food production by nuclear winter. Worldwide birth rates are already at replacement levels, although higher in Africa, so population should stabilise at sustainable levels as long as people eat a mostly plant based diet. While nuclear war is a risk, climate change from global warming is a certainty, and is happening now. The oceans are absorbing extra heat at the astonishing rate of the equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear explosions every day. Unless emergency measures are taken soon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero, billions will die in bad ways from the effects of sea level rise and collapse of food production and distribution systems, as shown by plenty of hard science. Stay safe in lockdown.Charles (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)